EDITOR'S CORNER: Peace As A Tool To Deceive

The past few days have been a rollercoaster of meetings, headlines, and breaking news surrounding the ongoing peace process in Ukraine. Since the United States submitted its widely criticized 28-point peace plan, we’ve seen several revised iterations, culminating in a European-approved version that reportedly contains 20 points. Since Sunday, European leaders and U.S. envoys have been meeting in Berlin, signaling cautious progress. We are close, but still very far.

In this blog post, we’ll break down the latest developments in the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, while also examining some of the troubling consequences that have emerged from this drawn-out and deeply complex process.

 

WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING SO FAR?

Over the past few days, Ukraine has reported measurable progress in peace-related talks, largely through discussions with U.S. and European representatives rather than direct negotiations with Russia. Meetings in Berlin have centered on a potential framework that could include security guarantees for Ukraine and steps toward a pause in the fighting, though officials continue to stress that nothing has been finalized.

European countries have taken on a more visible role, floating proposals such as a multinational force or international mechanisms to help enforce any future agreement. Separately, an international claims commission for war damages has been approved, signaling early preparations for post-war accountability even as active negotiations continue.

Despite this diplomatic momentum, there is still no direct Ukraine–Russia peace agreement or ceasefire. Russia has not publicly shifted from its hardline positions on territory or the conditions for ending the war, leaving the most contentious issues unresolved and the peace process fragile.

UKRAINE'S RED LINES

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been adamant that Ukraine cannot accept the territorial concessions proposed, or as Kyiv views them, pressured, by the United States. Ceding the Donbas would mean relinquishing a critical pillar of Ukraine’s defensive infrastructure. The region is home to Ukraine’s so called fortress belt, a heavily fortified section of the front line that has proven extremely difficult for Russian forces to penetrate. Surrendering it would leave Ukraine dangerously exposed to future attacks.

Moreover, any such concessions would require approval from Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, a step that appears highly unlikely. Ukraine’s defense forces have also signaled firm opposition, underscoring just how politically and militarily untenable these proposals remain.

Ukraine is also seeking clear and concrete security guarantees from its allies in the United States and Europe, something comparable to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. So far, however, allies have been hesitant to spell out what support they would provide in the event of another Russian invasion. From Kyiv’s perspective, only guarantees backed by sufficient military materiel and a credible presence on the ground would be meaningful.

European leaders remain reluctant, citing the limitations of their own armed forces and their ability to sustain both national defense and long-term support for Ukraine. The United States has also shown limited appetite for binding commitments, instead favoring a form of “sustainable peace” that accommodates Russia while leaving Ukraine to manage the consequences. Figures such as Trump and Witkoff appear more focused on the investment potential of a deal than on securing a just and lasting peace.

WHERE TO GO FROM NOW?

We have discussed this many times. Peace is not what Putin wants. He has stated clearly that he is prepared to take what he wants from Ukraine by force. If he can obtain those gains without further bloodshed, so much the better from his perspective. In this sense, the peace negotiations serve as a way to obscure what is really happening on the ground and, at the same time, to indulge Donald Trump and keep him politically engaged.

President Zelenskyy is in an extraordinarily difficult position. Even if he were to accept these harsh terms and cede all the territory Russia demands, such a decision would not be supported by the Verkhovna Rada or by Ukrainian society at large. The military understands that these areas contain critical defensive infrastructure that cannot be surrendered without catastrophic consequences. There is also a deeper issue of national dignity. Thousands of defenders have died and millions have suffered, only to be asked to give up precisely what Russia demanded at the very start of the war.

At this point, it is difficult to see the process moving forward anytime soon. Compounding the problem, European leaders remain divided over the frozen Russian funds held in Brussels. These assets should be released and transferred to Ukraine without hesitation. Questions of fairness ring hollow when set against the reality that Russia launched an unprovoked invasion and has caused hundreds of billions of euros in damage. Russia should bear the cost of reconstruction, as well as the ongoing expenses Ukraine incurs simply to defend itself.

Adding to this strain is the increasingly adversarial posture of the United States toward Europe. The more Washington appears to accommodate Russia, the harder it becomes for Europe to act decisively and confront Russian aggression. What is needed is unity across the West. Instead, that unity is eroding, with relationships growing more tense and fragmented by the day. Russia is acutely aware of these divisions and exploits them fully. The more divided Europe becomes, the easier it is for belligerent states to intimidate, destabilize, and inflict lasting damage.

 

MY OPINION

For the peace process to move forward, maximum pressure must be applied to Moscow. The Kremlin will not accept any meaningful agreement unless it is forced into a position with no viable alternatives. Putin must be made to confront a clear calculation: the cost of continuing the war versus the cost of peace. Inside Russia, public frustration is growing as the cost of living rises, energy shortages loom, and the prospect of a long, cold winter approaches. At the same time, Russia’s casualty toll continues to climb, further straining an already fragile social contract.

Russian society is also absorbing the return of large numbers of men from the front who are physically injured, psychologically scarred, and deeply embittered. Many receive little to no support from the state and are denied the benefits they were promised. These individuals are trained to use weapons, accustomed to violence, and increasingly radicalized. For now, this pressure remains contained, but the risk of it boiling over is real. Women, in particular, bear the consequences, facing rising levels of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual assault as traumatized soldiers return home and society looks the other way.

The United States needs to stop viewing this conflict primarily through a financial lens and return to thinking in terms of long-standing geopolitical principles. Europe, for its part, must act with strength, strategy, and unity. Ukraine must remain resolute and hold its ground. Western allies should significantly increase the flow of weapons and materiel to Ukraine, to the point where the war becomes untenable for Putin to continue and where Russia no longer believes that confronting NATO would be easy or cost-free.

CONCLUSION

The peace process in Ukraine remains fragile, with key issues like territorial concessions and security guarantees unresolved. Zelenskyy faces immense pressure to defend critical infrastructure and national pride, while Russia maintains hardline positions and internal unrest grows.

For progress, the West must act with unity and resolve. Ukraine needs strong support, and Moscow must face costs that outweigh any gains. True peace will only come when diplomacy is backed by strength, accountability, and solidarity.