More than two and a half years after the war in Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost or damaged, and there is no known end in sight. Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin are both being driven away from the table by strong suspicion, changing leads along the frontlines, and agonizing fights like those at Vuhledar and Bakhmut. But while Russia’s invasion is the underlying cause of the conflict, both Moscow and Ukraine’s American allies have contributed to preventing peace, occasionally consciously, other times directly.
In the first few months of the war, a true opportunity for a , sharp and peaceful solution emerged. In exchange for international security guarantees, Ukraine and Russia’s diplomats met in Turkey and Belarus to discuss possible arrangements, with Kyiv exploring the idea of rejecting NATO account and giving up some place. Despite differing views on some detail, both sides appeared willing to compromise on some points.  ,
However, just as these talks were progressing, anxious American nations intervened. In particular, the United States and the United Kingdom sent a message to Ukraine that talks with Russia were unnecessary, which indicated that neither country was ready to support Ukraine as part of a peace agreement. Studies suggest that when Boris Johnson, then-British Prime Minister, visited Zelensky to tell him that the West was not interested in talks and that he should press his country to maintain resisting with the promise of extended military assistance, Boris Johnson was there. Soon after, the conversations broke down. The proposal’s disputes would never have been resolved, nor will we ever know whether Russia do have accepted it, but the only hope for peace at the start of the conflict was lost.
Continued Aid Staves Off Tough Judgments
That continued defense help — , a , substantial$ 175 billion authorized , in response to the issue to date from the United States only — , has been an important factor in helping Ukraine defend its place, but it has also influenced Kyiv’s reticence to pursue politics and staved off hard choices. The influx of weapons and promises of military assistance” for as long as it takes” have encouraged Ukraine to pursue maximized military gains, even as Kyiv , struggles to find fresh conscripts , to replenish its armed forces.  ,
Without U.S. assistance, Ukraine would have inevitably encountered munitions shortages before running out of qualified personnel and having to make the difficult choice between making concessions to put an end to the war. Now, the problem is increasingly unavoidable anyway, only with hundreds of billions of dollars in damage done to Ukraine and roughly , 1 million people , killed or wounded as the war has dragged on.
Concerns and Mistrust
For its part, Russia has its own concerns it seeks to address, particularly around NATO’s eastward expansion, which it views as a security threat. Putin has  , framed the war , as a defensive response to Western encroachment on Moscow’s sphere of influence. A peace deal would need to include assurances that Ukraine would not be a member of NATO, something that NATO has been reluctant to do, despite vague assurances to Kyiv.
Finally, deeply rooted mutual mistrust has fueled the war for so long. Russia has a reputation for respecting peace agreements, especially those that involve territorial concessions in the Donbass or Crimea. On the other hand, Russia doubts whether the West will support a resolution to limit NATO or American presence in Ukraine.
Despite maximal claims on both sides, a realistic way forward would need to involve , concessions from everyone involved.
Options
After 2022, Russia may withdraw from some of the Ukrainian territories it has occupied, giving up on some of the provinces it has less control over. In contrast to Austria or Finland, both prosperous countries, Ukraine would need to accept neutral status and stand apart from NATO and Russia during the Cold War.
Any party would struggle to sell a deal like this. Russia would lose ground, and Ukraine would be accepting a more neutral position, and the West would likely have to agree to play a long-term security role for Ukraine without having formally established alliance status. Nevertheless, it is the most realistic path towards an end to the fighting.
Both parties are in the midst of growing economic and military pressures. Without a shift in focus to diplomacy, the conflict runs the risk of becoming a more deeply rooted stalemate that will have disastrous effects on Ukraine and the entire region or a disastrous escalation by either side to try to alter the landscape on the battlefield.
Russia has shown no reluctance to pursue peace in good faith. Nevertheless, if both sides are willing to move beyond their current positions and engage in tough compromises, there remains hope that a stable peace can be achieved. What is clear is that a military victory is unlikely for either side, and the current course of the conflict will only lead to further destruction for the Ukrainians and Russians who are caught in the crossfire.
Robert Clarke serves as Stand Together’s director of foreign policy marketing strategy. Follow him on X at @ClarkeDynamics.