In the absence of substantive compromises, the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to grind on as a protracted war of attrition, potentially hardening into a frozen conflict rather than yielding a durable peace
The war in Ukraine is entering its fifth year, and the negotiating process is apparently gaining momentum — with two meetings in the United Arab Emirates, talks in Geneva, and another round expected soon — yet peace is still not visible on the horizon.
The trilateral US-Russia-Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi suggested that the negotiations had moved to a new level of engagement. They covered “methods to implement a ceasefire and monitor the cessation of military activities,” offering a glimmer of hope for some “progress” on military issues. The meetings in Geneva also involved face-to-face discussions between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations, though few details have entered the public domain. Despite the cautious optimism, the impact of these deliberations remains limited. The talks have had no discernible effect on the battlefield, where exchanges of air strikes continue uninterrupted, which, along with other stumbling blocks, make a peace deal appear quite distant.
Although the territorial question is often described as “the crux of the deal,” it is not Moscow’s ultimate objective, nor is it the sole obstacle to peace. The deeper issue for Moscow is arguably one of security and geopolitics.
Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on how the war should end. Ukraine’s conditions for an endgame include the restoration of its territories and credible security guarantees. Faced with a gradually deteriorating situation on the ground and increased pressure from the Trump administration to achieve progress in negotiations, Ukraine has softened its position on returning to the 1991 borders — previously a central prerequisite for ending the war. Moreover, given the change in Washington's approach, Kyiv is now reportedly willing to abandon its demand for NATO membership. Instead, Ukraine appears ready to settle for long-term security guarantees from Western countries, including the United States. President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to insist that any agreement must ensure fair terms, including Ukraine’s sovereignty over territories currently under the control of its armed forces, signalling reluctance to concede to Russia’s demand that Ukraine fully vacate the Donbas region.
The media discourse surrounding the peace negotiations tends to portray the territorial question as the major stumbling block, but this risks missing the broader point. The central issue remains Russia’s demand that Ukraine be “neutral” and maintain a military posture that is incapable of launching an offensive against Russia. It is true that the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions have been enshrined as Russian territory in Russia’s constitution since September 2022. However, Russian legislation contains an important linguistic caveat: the boundaries of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are defined as those “that existed on the date of [their] admission to the Russian Federation.” This formulation gives Moscow sufficient leeway in negotiations over territories.
A possible compromise on the territorial question, first mooted during the Alaska summit, could take the form of a so-called “land swap.” As part of the “Anchorage formula”, Moscow has reportedly signalled a willingness to temper its appetite for large swathes of Ukrainian territories, demanding Donbas in its entirety while agreeing to freeze the line of contact in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. For its part, Kyiv is insisting on a ceasefire along the current line of actual control in all the disputed regions.
For Kyiv, therefore, the crucial factor in any future peace settlement is the provision of Western security guarantees, designed to protect Ukraine from any Russian aggression.
Even if the Ukrainian armed forces were to fully withdraw from the territories in question, which they naturally are reluctant to do, Kyiv’s compromise on this matter would not resolve the Gordian knot of the war. Although the territorial question is often described as “the crux of the deal,” it is not Moscow’s ultimate objective, nor is it the sole obstacle to peace. The deeper issue for Moscow is arguably one of security and geopolitics.
Russia seeks to renegotiate the broader European security architecture in a manner that addresses its concerns regarding the NATO presence along its borders. The Russian position was outlined in President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June 2024. This vision belies the expectations of the Ukrainian leadership and Kyiv’s European partners on how the war should end.
In essence, Moscow seeks a neutral Ukraine that is neither part of any military alliance nor equipped with significant military capabilities, and does not pursue “anti-Russian” policies. From the outset of the “special military operation”, the Kremlin has appeared intent on toppling the Ukrainian government, anticipating that a new leadership would struggle to consolidate the nation and would be compelled to reconsider its previous policies. But these expectations appear far divorced from the political realities in Ukraine, where Moscow is unlikely to find any meaningful constituency for decades. Ukraine today has become the most militarised and embattled country in Europe, and its politics are likely to be shaped by revanchist sentiments for a long time to come.
The prospect of Ukraine emerging as a frontline state equipped with advanced Western equipment will likely tempt Russia to continue its military campaign if doing so prevents the deployment of Western military infrastructure or troops on Ukrainian soil.
For Kyiv, therefore, the crucial factor in any future peace settlement is the provision of Western security guarantees, designed to protect Ukraine from any Russian aggression. While Western governments appear aligned on the importance of preserving Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, there remains uncertainty over how far the US will go to support the Coalition of the Willing, comprising 35 states. Washington is expected to lead the ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism; however, the extent of US participation in any multinational force intended “to support deterrence” remains unclear. Beyond this, Western states have agreed in principle to long-term defence cooperation with Ukraine, including the provision of military capabilities, intelligence sharing, and logistical support in the event of a future Russian armed attack.
The commitment to a multinational force in Ukraine, one of the pledges of the Coalition of the Willing, hardly aligns with Moscow’s outlook for the security environment in Eastern Europe. The prospect of Ukraine emerging as a frontline state equipped with advanced Western equipment will likely tempt Russia to continue its military campaign if doing so prevents the deployment of Western military infrastructure or troops on Ukrainian soil. While Moscow seems prepared to accept some security assurances for Ukraine, it would seek direct involvement in the process — as was outlined in the 2022 Istanbul agreements, which included Russia among the proposed guarantors.
This war of attrition can end only through a negotiated settlement requiring compromises from both parties, or through the exhaustion of one of the warring sides.
Meanwhile, the battlefield reality is that the anticipated collapse of Ukrainian defences has not materialised. A virtual stalemate persists in the Donbas and in parts of the Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. The front line has effectively turned into a 20-30 kilometre buffer ‘kill zone’, where drone systems battle for dominance and prevent either side from achieving air superiority or establishing a firm military presence on the ground. This war of attrition can end only through a negotiated settlement requiring compromises from both parties, or through the exhaustion of one of the warring sides.
An active war — perhaps in the form of a low-intensity conflict — can coexist with negotiations and preliminary agreements. In this complex environment, the path to peace will likely be a long one, and we may yet see a “frozen conflict” at the end of the road.
Nandan Unnikrishnan is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
Aleksei Zakharov is a Fellow, Russia & Eurasia, with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Nandan Unnikrishnan is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation New Delhi. He joined ORF in 2004. He looks after the Eurasia Programme of Studies. ...
Read More +
Aleksei Zakharov is a Fellow with ORF’s Strategic Studies Programme. His research focuses on the geopolitics and geo-economics of Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific, with particular ...
Read More +
PREV
