Perspectives and Challenges to Peace in Ukraine
Several factors significantly hinder the achievement of peace in Ukraine, stemming from its complex history, geopolitical interests, and the ongoing nature of the conflict.
Russia’s Perspective
Russia views Ukraine’s close ties with the West as a direct threat to its security and seeks to reassert its influence in the region. Russia has also presented demands that would radically alter Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as recognizing the annexed territories as Russian and preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Ukraine’s Perspective
Ukraine aims to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity, choosing its own path, including the possibility of joining Western alliances like NATO and the European Union. It is unwilling to cede territory and considers recognition of annexed lands a violation of its constitutional rights.
This naturally results in immense mistrust and an inability for both parties to reach, not a peace agreement, but merely a ceasefire. After 42 months of war, Russia and Ukraine display deep mistrust towards each other.
The Role of President Donald Trump
President Trump, acting as a mediator, faces the daunting task of finding common ground to halt the hundreds of thousands of deaths in this conflict. Russia’s actions, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and ongoing aggression, fuel Ukrainian suspicions. However, public opinion in Ukraine has shifted, with 70% wanting a peace agreement according to a recent survey in August 2025.
Putin’s Demands: An Unacceptable Ultimatum
On the table are Moscow’s absolute, non-negotiable conditions:
- Permanent Territorial Cession: Ukraine must permanently relinquish Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, including areas Russia has not militarily conquered since 2014.
- Forced Neutrality: An irrevocable commitment that Ukraine will never join NATO.
- Abandonment of Sovereignty: The cessation of all military efforts to reclaim occupied territories.
Putin does not offer a full withdrawal from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Instead, he promises only tactical retreats in Sumy and Jarkov, precisely where the current Ukrainian offensive forces his troops to fall back. This is an illusory concession in exchange for permanent losses.
The Walls of Impossibility: Why Zelensky Cannot Sign
The proposal is designed to be rejected, placing Zelensky in an impossible position due to several fundamental reasons:
- Constitutional Obstacle: Article 2 of Ukraine’s Constitution explicitly prohibits the cession of sovereign territory. Amending it would require a constitutional assembly, which is prohibited under the current martial law since Russia’s invasion.
- The Paradox of Legitimacy: The Kremlin has maintained for over a year that it does not recognize Zelensky’s authority, arguing his presidential term expired without elections. Putin deliberately ignores that martial law prohibits these elections. Moreover, Russia has promoted the narrative that Ukraine is a “fictitious state” that never formally defined its borders in 1991. How can Putin sign a binding treaty with a leader he does not recognize and a country he considers non-existent?
- The Weight of History; Broken Promises: Russia’s signature holds no value for Ukraine. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, guaranteed by the US and UK, stands as the most painful proof. Ukraine surrendered its third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for Russia’s promise of non-aggression. This promise was shattered in 2014 and annihilated in 2022. Similarly, the Minsk Agreements were consistently violated by Russia, demonstrating a historical pattern of using diplomacy as a tool to buy time for the next aggression.
The Strategic Cost: Surrendering Territory Means Losing the Future
Beyond legal and diplomatic considerations, accepting Putin’s terms would be strategic suicide for Ukraine.
- The Military Axis: The Donbas region, which Putin demands, is not just territory; it’s Ukraine’s backbone defense. For over a decade, it has transformed into the country’s most fortified defensive zone.
- Battles like those in Bakhmut and Avdiivka, which cost Russia hundreds of thousands of casualties, demonstrate the impregnability of this line.
- Demanding its surrender is like asking Russia to give up its Surovikin Line: an attempt to achieve diplomatically what has been impossible on the battlefield for 11 years of failures.
Ceding the Donbas would open doors to a future Russian invasion into Ukraine’s heartland.
The Persistence of War and Shifting Goals
Russia’s persistence: Russia has shown its willingness to endure heavy losses and economic sanctions to achieve its goals, suggesting a belief that time is on its side.
While initial objectives may have focused on preventing NATO expansion or securing the Donbas, Putin’s actions, according to reports from the Center for International Security Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC, suggest an intent to permanently alter Ukraine’s geopolitical landscape and even undermine its national identity.
External Influences and Divisions, Western Support for Ukraine
Crucial as it is for Ukraine’s defense, Russia views Western military and financial aid as prolonging the conflict and hindering negotiations.
Be aware that not all Europeans are united:
Despite general agreement on supporting Ukraine, there have been differences within the West on the best approach to achieve peace, including whether to prioritize a ceasefire or a comprehensive peace agreement.
Internal Political Factors:
- Ukrainian Public Opinion: While there is a growing desire for peace in Ukraine, the population resists territorial concessions, complicating any potential peace agreement involving such compromises.
- Russian Domestic Politics: Putin’s control of power and the perception that a peace agreement could be seen as national weakness might influence his negotiation approach and willingness to reach agreements.
- Humanitarian Damage and Infrastructure: The devastating human cost and widespread destruction caused by the war create immense pressure for a resolution but also deepen grievances and make reaching an agreement more difficult.
In essence, the path to peace in Ukraine is fraught with obstacles. A genuine and lasting peace likely requires significant shifts in both Russia’s and Ukraine’s stances, sustained diplomatic efforts from the international community, and addressing Ukraine’s uncertain economic future.
Putin’s proposal is also an attack on Ukraine’s economic viability. The Donbas houses the largest concentration of Ukraine’s mineral resources: iron, uranium, lithium, coal, and gold. Combined with the fertile agricultural lands in the south, currently under occupation, these territories represent Ukraine’s only chance for a reconstruction estimated at over 650 billion dollars. Putin not only claims the land but also Ukraine’s capacity to recover and prosper.
Putin’s Masterstroke: Blame as a Weapon
Putin’s calculation is deep and cynical. He knows Zelensky cannot accept it. The true goal isn’t peace but to corner Ukraine as the “intransigent” party.
By forcing a “no” from Kiev, Putin aims to present Trump with an argument for easing US sanctions, claiming it’s Ukraine and Zelensky who are blocking peace.
Despite Trump’s threats and demonstrations of force in Alaska, Putin appears unfazed. He skillfully maneuvers to shift responsibility for the conflict onto its victim, a strategy allowing him to solidify his territorial gains and weaken international consensus against his regime.
The offer Zelensky will hear in Washington is not an olive branch; it’s a game of Russian roulette where every chamber is loaded. For Ukraine, there’s no alternative; lasting peace lies in defending its sovereignty, not dismantling it.
Given all this, peace for Ukraine must first tread a fiery path. After three years of war, peace for Ukrainians remains elusive.
