As the war in Ukraine grinds through yet another year, a renewed push for diplomacy has emerged from the West, driven in large part by a desire for stability and a strategic pivot. However, the latest flurry of backroom meetings, envoy visits, and tentative proposals does not yet inspire confidence that peace is within reach. If anything, it highlights the yawning gulf between a desire to end hostilities quickly and the intractable realities on the ground. At the heart of the emerging proposal is a controversial trade-off: a ceasefire conditioned on Ukraine freezing the conflict lines as they currently stand, in exchange for Russia halting further advances. On paper, this might seem like a pragmatic step to stop the bloodshed. But pragmatism, in this context, comes at a steep moral and political cost.

Even the momentum behind these talks appears more tactical than transformative, driven by political timelines rather than a genuine reckoning with the complex roots and consequences of the war. The suggested recognition of Russian control over occupied territories ~ including Crimea ~ undermines core principles of international law and territorial sovereignty. It signals that military aggression can be rewarded with diplomatic legitimacy. Such a precedent not only weakens Ukraine’s position but also sends a dangerous message globally: borders can be redrawn by brute force. Ukraine’s resistance to this deal is both expected and justified. No sovereign nation can be expected to concede land that is internationally recognised as its own, especially when the cost has been paid in thousands of lives and shattered cities.

Advertisement

Even if its leadership were to consider such terms, the Ukrainian people would need to approve them through a democratic process ~ one that is unlikely to endorse ceding territory under duress. Meanwhile, Russia’s position remains rooted in maximalist demands. Its call for Ukrainian “demilitarisation” and a permanent NATO veto reflects a broader strategy to strip Ukraine of agency and reshape the European security order. These demands are incompatible with Ukraine’s right to self-defence and its aspiration to integrate with the West. The current peace framework also suffers from vagueness. Key issues ~ such as sanctions relief, long-term security guarantees, and postceasefire enforcement mechanisms ~ are either unresolved or inadequately addressed. This ambiguity creates fertile ground for future conflict, rather than durable peace.

The diplomatic push, while commendable in intent, risks becoming a shallow gesture unless it grapples honestly with the fundamental asymmetries at play. Peace cannot be forged by side-lining the nation under attack or by validating questionable annexations. Real diplomacy requires time, clarity, and above all, trust ~ none of which are in abundant supply. In the rush to negotiate an end to the war, the world must not lose sight of justice. Peace that silences guns but enshrines aggression is no peace at all. The challenge, then, is to end the war without betraying the principles that must define the peace.