You wrote a book about how wars end and what might affect it. In short, what are the main conditions for ending the war?
It is not easy to think about it this way, given the brutality of war, but 1 of its crucial parts is negotiations. It's kind of like selling a car where you negociate a price with a buyer. Or like negotiations between the union and the board of directors erstwhile they discuss the terms of the strike. In the same way, during the war, respective parties negociate the terms of its conclusion. The fight continues until the minimum conditions are found for participants to agree to. There are 2 factors that are able to aid bring positions closer together to increase the likelihood of peace.
The first 1 is information. 1 reason why the parties disagree with their demands is that they have different visions of the future on the battlefield and who will show the best result. If both sides are optimistic about their military prospects in conflict, it is harder for them to scope an agreement. Similarly, if both sides are waiting for the enemy to exhaust itself.
Russia is waiting for the West and the US to hold aid for UkraineTo weaken her. Kiev is besides waiting for Russian arms and economical problems to begin.
The second origin is trust. Even if the parties come to an agreement, how can we be certain that the opposing organization will follow its rules? In the case of a trade union and a company, this is simply a smaller problem — a contract is signed, a breach of it can be sued in court. But in the case of 2 countries it is more complicated, they can easy violate it.
And this has already happened for Ukraine and Russia. In 1994, Russia signed Budapest memorandumwhich obliged it to respect Ukraine's borders. Nevertheless, Moscow first occupied Crimea and then started a full-scale war.
Russian and Ukrainian peace demands are constantly changing due to the fact that leaders act strategically and are not always honest in their declarations. Russia's main minimum demands are to keep its territories, to refuse Ukraine's accession to NATO and to limit abroad aid to the Kiev army even after the peace agreement has been signed. On the another hand, Ukrainians want to regain occupied territories and hold abroad military support.
Currently, the positions of the parties are opposing.
The will to fight
What must happen to make the conditions on which the parties agree to peace converge?
That's a question everyone wants to know the answer to. At present, I fear that peace can only be achieved if 1 of the parties begins to endure crucial military failures. We don't know erstwhile that's gonna happen.
One of the reasons why situation on the battlefield will decide everything, are the latest public opinion polls. According to them, the Ukrainian population is willing to fight further to avoid territorial concessions. Putin besides wants to fight, despite crucial casualties.
If either side begins to endure crucial military failures, it is likely that it will gotta accept very hard conditions. In the case of Russia, this failure may be the exhaustion of tank stock in early 2026. erstwhile that happens, the army will lose its ability to occupy territory and conduct war effectively. Moscow may besides have staff problems. He's already utilizing assistance from North Korean soldiers and groups she shouldn't trust on.
On the another hand, Ukraine is simply a much smaller country. It besides relies on a population that powers an army, but a much bigger problem for it is stopping military aid. It seems to me that even if the US cuts off support for Kiev for an indefinite period, it will not be a major problem in the case of increased assistance from European countries, especially Germany and France. Therefore, the war may last for at least a fewer months.
Are negotiations with Russia at all possible, given that it has a immense advantage, including Nuclear weapons?
I don't think atomic weapons would aid Russia much. Its usage would be a turning point not at all in favour of Putin, as it could lead to NATO's direct engagement in the war.
Yes, Russia is much larger than Ukraine, but it has not shown much success in this war. From the data we see, victim ratio is much higher than among Ukrainians.
Is it possible to resolve the conflict by negotiation if there is area for an offensive on the battlefield? Were there specified precedents?
That depends on the cost-benefit ratio. Even if the country is able to proceed the war, it may choose not to do so due to the fact that the costs are besides high.
There are examples. For example, the Gulf War, erstwhile US forces and coalitions liberated Kuwait in about 100 hours with minimal casualties. Then they could attack Iraq and take Baghdad — they could. But the White home decided not to, due to the fact that diplomatic costs would be besides high.
The United States, despite having a successful possible on the battlefield, decided to suspend their weapons. So in all conflict there is hope that both sides will scope peace.
Diego Herrera Carcedo / AFPActivities in Donetsk Oblast, March 2025.
However, I am not certain that Moscow is negotiating in good faith. It seems to me that the Russians are participating in them more for the sake of appearance to show another countries their expected peaceful intentions.
I hope all negotiators get to know each another better and realize what their opponents want. It could bring them closer together. At the same time, I don't think talks in Saudi Arabia led to a ceasefire shortly enough. Rather, advancement can only be achieved in narrow areas.
Two crucial Factors
You said the crucial part of the negotiations was the negotiations. Does Donald Trump succeed?
I think Trump is simply a terrible negotiator. He failed in many situations where he could do so. The only exception is Abraham's agreement during his first term.
It seems from the outside that the United States does not know precisely what they are doing, due to the fact that the administration constantly balances between opposing things. They first suspend the exchange of intelligence with Ukraine and then resume it — it makes no sense. It is inactive unclear what the administration plans to do with the agreement on rare earth metals. But most importantly, they do not exert adequate force on Russia, seeing the possible of economical benefits from the Kremlin agreement.
Of course, Trump would like to negociate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine at a fast pace to declare diplomatic victory. But he does not seem to truly realize how successful global negotiations work.
The situation can only change rapidly if the United States changes its position and restricts the exchange of intelligence with Ukraine in order to exert maximum force on it on serious concessions. This would end the war, but would make an highly dangerous planet for Ukraine, which could at any minute face aggression from Russia.
The second origin in successful negotiations is trust. But how much can Russia be trusted?
Yes, the assurance problem between the parties besides stems from a dictatorship in Russia where there is no opposition. But the main problem is that Putin wants to take over Ukraine. It is precisely the combination of these 2 factors that plays a major role. Putin is an authoritative leader curious in conquering fresh territories. He will search an chance to break any ceasefire or peace agreement, as has already happened in the case of the Budapestan Memorandum.
This is akin to the situation with Munich of 1938, according to which the 3rd Reich received Sudetes in exchange for not conquering fresh territories. The following year Adolf Hitler conquered the full territory of Czechoslovakia despite an agreement. He was besides a dictator without opposition with large territorial ambitions.
Thus, in order to get Putin to accept and then honour the peace agreement, it would should be in his interest. I see a fewer possible ways that could happen.
Firstly, if the peace agreement were to be conditional on the establishment of non-NATO peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. This would greatly reduce Russia's willingness to proceed aggression in the future, as diplomatic consequences would be besides advanced if peacekeeping forces were attacked. Secondly, the agreement should be specified that the re-invasion into Ukraine is economically adverse for Putin.
In addition to these factors, only changing the government to democratic forces that refuse to aggressively attack their neighbours can aid resolve the conflict. However, it is hard to number on this factor.
At the same time, it cannot be said that democratic authorities do not violate agreements. The first Trump administration withdrew from the atomic agreement with Iran of 2015, The United Kingdom has withdrawn from the European Union, and the United States besides withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Medium-range Missiles with Russia. The situation is much more complicated than "authoritarian countries break agreements and democratic countries do not".
How do you feel about the peace between Russia and Ukraine that could be concluded this year? It will almost surely be completely unjust.
This is usually the case erstwhile a strong state tries to take over the territory of a smaller state. Exceptions are only possible if another countries are heavy active in the fight.
The current situation reminds us Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. Initially, things on the battlefield didn't work out well for the Red Army, then things got better. Later the war ceased and the USSR was able to take over part of Finland's territory under the treaty. This is terrible, but this is the nature of global relations — the strong take what they want and the weak are forced to accept it.
