This is, again, misleading. Both sides have expressed a willingness for a negotiated peace agreement, in fact they have already done work for it. The issue is neither sides conditions are acceptable to another, ergo an impasse.
Frankly, I haven’t seen much evidence from either side that they’re serious about ending the war. Zelenskyy claims he wants peace, but then goes on European media and flatly states he won’t accept any ceasefire that acknowledges Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea—or any of the other territories he’s already lost. Meanwhile, Putin signals he's open to a ceasefire, even as he ramps up military attacks and continues bombing cities.
Sure, one could argue that Putin is simply trying to improve his hand at the negotiating table—such as by reclaiming Russian territory like Kursk Oblast, which Ukraine had seized, rather than being forced to trade captured Ukrainian land just to get his own territory back. But if that’s the case, how exactly do Zelenskyy’s absolutist statements indicate any real interest in a negotiated peace?
This is an argument that boils down war to mere arithmitic, an understandable but not entirely sound venture.
Warfare typically follows one of two paths. The first involves overwhelming force, especially when paired with advanced technology, to quickly defeat and subjugate a nation in a short period of time. For example, the U.S.-led battle to liberate Kuwait and devastate Saddam’s forces. However, when such decisive battles don’t occur, warfare often devolves into a war of attrition. In such cases, the larger, more powerful nation usually emerges victorious. While American and European support for Biden’s proxy war against Russia has kept Ukraine alive, the patience of American taxpayers has reached its limit—just as Americans grew weary of the Vietnam War and later the Deep State’s 20-year wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
As for Europe, they’re already funneling more money to Russia every year through energy sales (despite alleged sanctions prohibiting them from buying Russian oil and gas) than they’re giving to Ukraine. How long do you think European taxpayers will continue funding Ukraine on their own if America walks away in the absence of a peace agreement?
The reality is that Russias demands include the essential surrender of Ukraine in exchange for basically no concessions on Russias part.
Ukraine has already signaled willingness to negotiate also long as it gets security guarantees that Russia won't return and finish the job later. Ukraine knows that if it surrenders, what will follow is the steady erasure of Ukraines status as an independent nation.
Ending the war via an armistice isn’t “surrendering.” It’s simply a matter of both nations coming to their senses and ending the senseless slaughter. Ukraine’s future security lies in its neutrality, with America and European nations making significant investments in Ukraine. Russia would think twice before attacking facilities tied to American and European interests. Besides, it’s in Russia’s national interest to pursue rapprochement, as it would benefit from returning to its pre-Obama Cold War 2.0 status as a member of the G8 and an economic peer of the Western world.
Zelenskyy is demanding either NATO membership or, alternatively, the extension of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense agreement to Ukraine. That’s never going to happen. As Trump stated, Zelenskyy holds no cards, so his ability to demand anything from America is non-existent. Even if Trump weren’t in office, you’d never get two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to ratify any treaty obligating America to defend Ukraine.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="426px" width="600px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="64px" width="64px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)