Why No One’s Talking About Negotiations — and What Would Make Them Start Again

As the war in Ukraine grinds into its fourth year, peace feels more distant than ever. The international community speaks less frequently about ceasefires and settlement talks, and more about armaments, deterrence and the stamina of warring nations. Yet wars do not last forever. Even the longest and bloodiest ones end at the negotiating table. So why, despite the immense cost in lives, do serious peace negotiations remain conspicuously absent — and what conditions might eventually thaw the diplomatic freeze?

The Collapse of the Peace Narrative

There were moments in the early phases of the war when peace appeared plausible. In March 2022, delegations from Kyiv and Moscow met in Istanbul for exploratory talks. There was cautious hope that Russia might scale back her ambitions after unexpectedly strong Ukrainian resistance. But trust was fragile, and revelations of atrocities in Bucha and other towns undermined any faith in Russian good will. By the end of that year, the mood had shifted decisively: Ukraine, bolstered by Western military support, aimed not just to survive, but to win. Russia, meanwhile, doubled down, calling up hundreds of thousands of reservists and annexing Ukrainian territories under occupation.

From that point onward, calls for negotiation were increasingly seen as either naïve or subversive. For Kyiv, agreeing to talks while Russia occupied vast swathes of her territory would legitimise aggression and reward war crimes. For Moscow, any compromise short of Ukraine’s submission would be a betrayal of President Putin’s maximalist rhetoric. Thus, diplomacy receded.

The Strategic Logic of Stalemate

At the heart of the silence surrounding negotiations lies a brutal arithmetic: both sides still believe they have more to gain through war than peace.

Ukraine’s leadership continues to pursue full territorial liberation. Although counteroffensives in 2023 and 2024 brought mixed results, they demonstrated Kyiv’s operational capability and political resolve. Moreover many Ukrainians — still haunted by the legacy of Russian domination — see peace without justice as surrender. War, although costly, has become a vehicle for national survival, not merely statecraft.

Russia, for her part, has sunk vast resources and prestige into the war. President Putin cannot afford to lose without endangering his grip on power. With battlefield momentum fluctuating and economic insulation holding — thanks to Chinese, Iranian, and some Global South support — the Kremlin sees continued conflict as less dangerous than capitulation.

International Fatigue and Shifting Priorities

The geopolitical environment has done little to encourage talks. The West, particularly the United States, has maintained support for Ukraine throughout the transition from Biden to Trump administrations and while initially showing an inclination to force her into negotiations early in the second Trump Presidency now seems to have abandoned the efforts and lost interest in Ukraine. At the same time, America’s attention has become increasingly divided, with crises in the Middle East and tensions in East Asia demanding ever more of her time. European unity on Ukraine remains largely intact, but fatigue is palpable. Sanctions persist, but enforcement is leaky; military support continues, but at times hesitantly.

Russia, meanwhile, has attempted to court disaffected non-Western nations with anti-colonial rhetoric and promises of multipolarity. For many such countries, the war in Ukraine is a distant issue — tragic, yes, but secondary to more immediate concerns.

Thus the conditions for mediated talks — a willing host, credible intermediaries, and aligned incentives — remain elusive.

What Would Change the Calculation?

History suggests that diplomacy only resumes when certain key conditions shift. In Ukraine’s case, several scenarios could prompt renewed interest in talks:

1. Military Breakthroughs: A major change in the battlefield — such as a dramatic Ukrainian breakthrough in the south, or conversely, a devastating Russian offensive — could create asymmetries that force one side to reconsider its stance. However the front line has proven remarkably static since November 2002 with the Ukrainian liberation of Kherson, and both sides are heavily dug in.

   
   

2. Domestic Political Shocks: A political crisis in Russia might change strategic calculations. Ukraine’s war effort remains heavily dependent on international support, and while US support might be seen as having wavered under a second Trump administration support for Ukraine in the US Congress remains strong. Moreover the White House's loss of interest in Ukraine is being compensated for by increased militarisation in Europe to support Kyiv in the event that White House support dwindles further.

   
   

3. Economic Attrition: Should sanctions and resource drain begin to bite harder in Moscow, or should Ukrainian infrastructure sustain irrecoverable damage from missile and drone attacks, economic realities might outweigh ideological commitments. However increasing oil prices arising from the current conflict between Israel and Iran can only bolster her financial resources to continue the conflict; and Russia has proven incapable of causing irrepairable damage to Ukrainian infrastructure over the course of more than three years of war so far. Instead Russia has taken to attacking residential apartment blocks: terrorising, but of no military value.

   
   

4. External Mediation or Guarantees: If credible security guarantees were offered — perhaps by neutral European powers or a UN-backed coalition — the groundwork for a peace framework could be re-established. Given the lack of US interest in the conflict at the current time, those security guarantees would have to be provided by European troops (presumably British, French and German), entering Ukrainian territory.

   
   

5. Public Pressure: War weariness, in both Ukraine and Russia, could build to the point where leaders are compelled to listen. But for now, Ukrainian civil society remains largely united behind continued resistance, and dissent in Russia is ruthlessly suppressed.

What Might Peace Look Like?

Any future negotiations will likely be messy and incomplete. There is little appetite on either side for full compromise. But interim arrangements — demilitarised zones, prisoner exchanges, phased withdrawals and monitored ceasefires — could form the basis of a longer-term process. Much would depend on trust, enforcement mechanisms and international guarantees.

Crucially, any settlement would need to account for justice and accountability, particularly for war crimes and crimes against humanity. For Ukraine, peace cannot mean silence or impunity. The scars of Mariupol, Bucha, and Kherson run too deep.

Conclusion: A Future Pause

For now, the guns are louder than the diplomats. But that will not last forever. Wars end not only through fatigue or futility, but because human societies crave order, stability and meaning. The tragedy is that peace may only come when the suffering has reached proportions intolerable to all sides.

The question is not whether there will be negotiations — but how many more lives will be lost before the world once again makes room at the table.