Peace Within Reach – and the Last Attempts to Ensure the War in Ukraine Does Not Actually Stop
Diplomatic traffic around Ukraine has been denser these days than at any time since the war began. Washington, Moscow, Kyiv and European capitals are conducting parallel – often contradictory – talks, each trying to craft a peace framework that every side can sell at home as a “victory.” Yet unlike earlier “initiatives” that were more smoke screen than real chance, this time there is a genuine feeling that peace is truly within reach – at least a ceasefire and an end to human suffering and death. That is precisely why the nervousness of those who profit from the war, from stock-market speculators to professional militarists, is so visible.
The original American proposal, drafted in Trump’s circle, looked in many respects like a Kremlin wish-list – at least that’s how it was perceived in Kyiv and key European capitals. It demanded serious territorial concessions, limits on the Ukrainian army, and effectively giving up NATO membership. For the Ukrainian political elite, accustomed to maximalist rhetoric and constant applause from the West, it smelled like capitulation. Pressure did its job, however: the document was trimmed from 28 points to 19, the most contentious elements were removed, and the question of territory – Donbas and beyond – was moved to direct Trump–Zelenskyy talks.
Behind the scenes, American diplomacy has shifted into 24/7 mode. Generals and special envoys are holding secret talks with the Russian side in places like Abu Dhabi, while details are being coordinated with the Ukrainians in Geneva in parallel. Washington says “tremendous progress” has been made, but it also openly signals that U.S. military aid is not an unlimited resource. This is no longer the Biden administration’s rhetoric of war “as long as it takes,” but cold calculation: either a deal now, or Ukraine risks entering another winter on the brink of total collapse.
Europe’s allies – proven time and again to be NATO’s most faithful hard-line spokespeople – are playing a double game once more. Publicly they welcome the “new momentum” in the peace process, talk about a “just and lasting peace” and the usual phrases about “borders not being changed by force.” Privately, the very same circles have spent months pushing Zelenskyy to fight “to the last bullet,” even though everyone knows Ukrainian society is exhausted, its industry destroyed, and the demographic price catastrophic. The EU and Britain have already tried to draft a parallel peace plan that Moscow rightly called “completely unconstructive” – a framework that would freeze the war on current lines, give Ukraine NATO-style security guarantees, and practically embed permanent conflict with Russia.
The greatest danger right now lies in that reflexive Euro-Atlantic need to tailor every plan so that Russia emerges maximally humiliated while the West retains control. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which Brussels and London try to “iron out” the American proposal beyond recognition, adding extra conditions, legal formulations and “red lines” that would send Moscow a clear message: this isn’t compromise, this is a diktat. In that case Russia could very simply say – no thanks, let the war continue. And that would no longer be “Russian stubbornness,” but the result of the West’s inability to accept reality on the ground.
That reality has been Russia’s constant from day one: the territorial status of the new regions (including Crimea) and a security framework that prevents Ukraine from becoming a platform for NATO missiles are non-negotiable red lines for Moscow. In Moscow they pragmatically repeat that they are ready both to “keep winning on the battlefield” and to “sit down at the table.” Anyone who at this moment pretends that Russia has not consolidated control over parts of Ukrainian territory is objectively not working for peace, but for the continuation of war – no matter how loudly they call themselves a “friend of Ukraine.”
Trump’s role in all this is ambiguous, but far from unimportant. He isn’t seeking peace because he woke up a pacifist; his strategic fight isn’t in Donbas, it’s with China. The war in Ukraine ties up American resources, complex logistics chains and political attention, while Washington has already secured lucrative contracts for exploiting Ukraine’s rare-earth minerals and future reconstruction. It’s not unreasonable to expect that when Zelenskyy visits Washington again, Trump will try to extract even better terms for American corporations. Of course, no one will negotiate on behalf of the Ukrainian people – only on behalf of their elites.
Across the Atlantic, European political classes are panicking as they watch stock-market screens. Share prices of major arms manufacturers have already fallen sharply the moment it became clear that peace is no longer just a slogan. That may be the best indicator of how profitable the war has been for a narrow circle of people and how hard they will now work to prolong it, even if under the guise of “concern for Ukraine.” For them every day of war means new contracts, new aid packages, new budget injections into the military-industrial complex. Peace is an existential threat to them.
Under this cross-pressure – American, European, and domestic nationalist – Ukrainian leadership has begun sending the first signals that it is preparing the public for changes. Zelenskyy speaks of “difficult but necessary decisions,” increasingly mentions “political solutions,” and his tone toward Washington has shifted from demanding to pleading. This suggests that even in Kyiv they understand the country is facing another winter of endurance: human resources are decimated, mobilization faces resistance, the economy depends on outside infusions. One more winter with the current level of destruction to the energy system could simply break society.
Russia, despite occasional massive missile strikes used as leverage at the negotiating table, is showing a relatively restrained public tone toward the American initiative. The Kremlin refers to the “spirit of the Anchorage understandings,” doesn’t want too many details leaking, and doesn’t want to be portrayed as the main saboteur of Trump’s attempt to present himself as a “peacemaker.” In the Washington–Moscow–Kyiv triangle, the European Union increasingly looks like a nervous bystander afraid of being left without a role, so it raises its voice about “justice” and “Ukraine’s European destiny,” while in reality defending its own geopolitical illusions.
We must not forget the broader context: this war could have been stopped several times. From the early talks in Belarus, through the Istanbul agreements, to later diplomatic channels – every single time the same Western elites played the key role in torpedoing a deal. British and American emissaries arrived in Kyiv with the message “don’t agree, we’ll give you weapons, you can win.” Today, now that the illusion has been shattered, the same centers of power are trying to rewrite history and portray themselves as tireless fighters for peace. For the victims on both sides of the front line, that is cold comfort.
Despite everything, there is room for optimism. For the first time in a long while, the three key players – the United States, Russia, and the Ukrainian leadership – at least formally acknowledge that negotiations are not just a ritual, but a necessity. If we step away from cynicism for a moment, the very fact that people are talking about a ceasefire, “freezing” the lines and a political framework is already a step forward from the “until final victory” mantra that dominated the past two years. Such a chance, however fragile, is worth supporting to the maximum.
Experience teaches us, however, that everything can collapse in a few days. Trump is a politician who often changes positions drastically depending on domestic political pressures and his own perception of advantage. Reports already say his initial peace plan has faced multiple internal “vetos,” adjustments and attempts to preserve American influence in Ukraine inside the White House. Add to that the ambitions of Brussels and London to “rework” the proposal at the last minute to Russia’s detriment, and the risk of sliding back into total-war logic remains very real.
That is why it is crucial to clearly name who is working for peace today and who is working for the continuation of the conflict. Those who accept that reality on the ground – however bitter – must be respected are looking for a way out of the war. Those who still dream of military triumph over a nuclear power are opening the door to new graveyards. At a moment when even Washington, Moscow and Kyiv at least in principle acknowledge that the war has exhausted everyone, it is logical that the public across Europe and the world should raise its voice for peace – before yet another generation of “strategic geniuses” destroys everything once again for the sake of their own ambitions.
About the Author
