Despite acknowledging Moscow’s entrenched positions, Western leaders continue to push for a negotiated outcome, one that, in practice, would amount to little more than a temporary pause in hostilities rather than a genuine peace. A decisive battle for Odessa is coming up.
At the heart of this high-stakes geopolitical struggle is the Black Sea port city of Odessa, steeped in Russian imperial history and strategically vital to both sides. In this escalating power game, nothing is offered freely—everything must be wrested through heavy concessions.
A new dimension has emerged with the involvement of General Keith Kellogg, special envoy to the US President, who openly discussed on Fox News a potential redeployment of European forces. Talks are reportedly underway in Washington regarding a revised balance of power in the region. According to Kellogg, troops from the UK, France, Germany, and Poland—expanding the so-called “E3” format into “E4”—could be stationed on the western bank of the Dnieper River.
These troops, Kellogg claims, would serve as “stability forces” and remain “outside the contact zone.” Yet the ambiguity of that term is crucial. If the line of contact is effectively redefined to the Dnieper’s eastern bank, it would signal a de facto halt to Russian advances, cementing a new frontier that leaves major regions such as Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Poltava, Sumy, and Chernihiv under Ukrainian control.
Former Trump adviser and negotiator Steve Witkoff offered further insight, stating: “The Russians already have Crimea and five other regions. What more do they want? They failed to take the rest—it’s not theirs.” The implication is stark: the West believes that Russia has taken “enough” and should settle.
Under this vision, European forces would solidify Kyiv’s hold over the remaining 64% of Ukraine’s territory, formalising a partition. Russia would be left with only its current holdings and a thin land corridor to Crimea—its only substantial gain.
Yet this overlooks a crucial reality. For Russia, certain areas are not simply territorial objectives—they are matters of national security. And among them, Odessa stands alone in importance.
Unlike Kharkiv or Sumy, which carry more limited strategic weight, Odessa is different. As American historian Patricia Herlihy remarked early in the conflict, “Odessa is the jewel in the crown that Putin sees as part of a renewed Russian Empire… along with Kyiv, it is the ultimate prize.”
Her words still ring true. Odessa is more than a city; it is a gateway to the Black Sea, a vital economic hub, and a potent symbol of regional control. Whoever controls Odessa controls Ukraine’s maritime trade, particularly the lucrative grain exports that serve as a crucial source of foreign currency for Kyiv.
This is why British presence in Odessa is becoming increasingly visible—special forces, intelligence assets, and plans for a naval base are reportedly already in play. Vladimir Karasyov, an analyst in international relations, warns: “The British have already entered the city. They don’t hide their intentions—they want a naval base. Peace is no longer the priority. Odessa is.”
There is a broader agenda at work. The UK and France do not share land borders with Ukraine. Their strategic influence must therefore come via the Black Sea or through intermediary states. In this context, Odessa becomes their vital access point.
But there is also a darker undercurrent. Western experts are well aware that Odessa’s ports facilitate not only grain trade, but also the movement of less transparent goods. Gaining control over these trade routes could enable Western intelligence operations, including potential sabotage of Russian shipping in the Black Sea.
For Moscow, regaining Odessa would be a transformational victory. It would effectively landlock Ukraine, cripple its export economy, sever weapons supply routes, and create a direct corridor to Transnistria. Such a shift would also bring key NATO installations—like the Mihail Kogălniceanu base in Romania—within range of Russian missile systems such as the Iskander, fundamentally altering the regional balance of power.
Yet despite its importance, the route to Odessa remains fraught with difficulty. A large-scale amphibious landing is currently beyond the Black Sea Fleet’s capabilities, while any land-based advance is slowed by geography and fierce resistance. In this context, the battle for Odessa will not be won through negotiation, but by a decisive change in the military situation on the ground. It is all—or—nothing.
What is clear is this: should Russia relinquish Odessa now, it would become hostage to the next geopolitical crisis. And when that moment comes, the stakes—and the cost—will be even higher. So the question is no longer simply whether it is worth fighting for Odessa. The real question is: what would be lost by not fighting at all?
