The window for peace in Ukraine is open – but for how long?
Tuesday’s talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump have marked a shift towards the resolution of the Ukraine conflict. However, given the number of unresolved issues, the results are still unclear and a setback could occur at any moment.
The flaws in the European security system will continue to jeopardize prospects for normalization for a long time. Nonetheless, the window of opportunity for achieving peace is still open. The motivation to leverage these circumstances is shaped by the results that Russia has achieved in its military operation so far, as well as the potential scenarios that could unfold for both sides if the conflict continues.
Among the key results, we may note Russia’s readiness to use force to defend its interests in Europe. For three decades following the conclusion of the Cold War, Moscow’s ability to protect its interests using force was often dismissed. The military operation in Ukraine put an end to this misconception. It has demonstrated that security relations with the West had become so complicated that, from Russia’s perspective, there appeared to be no other option. It became clear that the use of force and a large-scale conflict in Europe were real possibilities, so Moscow’s demands and concerns couldn’t be brushed aside with vague reassurances. Russia is willing to incur significant losses and take substantial risks in order to defend its fundamental security interests. It is not willing to back away, even if it can save face by doing so.
In the field of diplomacy, it’s notable that the non-Western countries have not formed any major anti-Russia coalitions. The Western bloc, united against Russia, has failed to pull in additional players. China, India, Brazil, South Africa – and others – have distanced themselves from sanctions policies. While businesses in these nations are wary of the secondary sanctions that could be imposed by the US and are not always eager to engage with our country, their governments have avoided imposing anti-Russia measures.
Trade with many nations in the Global South has surged. These countries have neither adopted a pro-Russian stance, nor formed a unified anti-Western front. However, discussions about diversifying global finance, trade, and political institutions have gained considerable traction. Ultimately, the resilience of the Western coalition has begun to falter. The new US administration seems to have recognized that the conflict has reached a dead end and has taken preemptive steps to end it.
Among the diplomatic outcomes, we may note Moscow’s ability to contain the escalation of military support for Ukraine. For an extended period of time, Russia’s ‘red lines’ were often crossed, as it struggled to halt increasing weapons supplies to Ukraine. These deliveries increased, with weapons systems becoming more long-range and lethal. Changes in Russia’s nuclear doctrine and the deployment of a new medium-range missile with a non-nuclear configuration have provided a crucial deterrent signal against the potential mass use of Western cruise missiles and other weapons systems by Ukraine.
Another significant outcome has been the ability to engage in a large-scale conflict with an opponent that has received substantial Western support in the form of weapons, intelligence, and funding. Russia’s defense industry has managed to maintain a high pace and scale of operations, quickly adapting to the new challenges posed by advancements in military technology, including the production and use of drones. At the same time, Moscow has essentially maintained an expeditionary approach in its military actions, avoiding extensive mobilization and instead relying on military volunteers and contract soldiers. The ability to conduct a large-scale and sustained military operation with a professional, rather than conscripted army has been a key interim achievement.
The resilience of the Russian economy amid its confrontation with the collective West is also notable. Its deep integration into global networks, its reliance on Western supply chains, financial institutions, and regulatory frameworks had created significant risks in light of potential large-scale Western sanctions. Such sanctions were imposed immediately after the start of the conflict and have intensified since. Nearly all kinds of restrictions have been employed against Russia, including blocking financial measures, export controls, import bans, and more. Friendly countries that partner with Russia face risks of secondary sanctions. Nevertheless, remarkably, Russia has avoided any significant financial or economic crisis. Clearly, the economy has suffered losses and damage, and this was felt by ordinary citizens. But Russia was able to restructure trade networks, markets, and import sources very quickly by historical standards.
In addition to the economy, the political system has also shown remarkable resilience. Moscow’s opponents had counted on a swift regime change and a split among the elites, but none of this happened. Neither ideological adversaries nor radical supporters were able to destabilize the country’s political system. While stricter order has been imposed amid wartime conditions, the country has managed to avoid sliding into a totalitarian model characterized by excessive and demoralizing control. Society has demonstrated resilience in extreme conditions, and has quickly adapted following an initial period of confusion. The high human cost of military actions, economic challenges, including inflation, and other changes has not led to major disintegration processes. Public sentiment regarding the conflict remains mixed, but it hasn’t divided society in a critical way.
In military terms, some of the direct results of Russia’s military operation include the depletion of Ukraine’s military potential (despite substantial Western support), the containment of possible counter attacks, and control over several strategically important locations. It seems that Moscow is considering the possibility of continuing hostilities, and has the necessary resources for it.
On the other hand, there may be no substantial military and political gains to be had by prolonging the conflict. Continued fighting would only make sense if Russia’s key demands – initially laid out during the negotiations in Istanbul back in 2022 – remain unmet. However, the new US administration also recognizes that dragging out the conflict poses significant risks. Beyond the possibility of a continued Russian offensive, there are concerns about further depleting military stockpiles and incurring enormous financial costs without clear prospects for defeating Russia. Ultimately, the current results and limitations create incentives for both Washington and Moscow to consider a peaceful resolution. Notably, both sides still possess the resources to continue the conflict. The players at the negotiating table each hold strong positions; neither side is negotiating from a weak position. Each side understands their interests and is willing to discuss them. It’s been a very long time since Russia and the US engaged in negotiations with such a mindset.
