By TN Ashok
For more than four years, the Russia-Ukraine war has defied every prediction of an early end. Armies have advanced and retreated, cities have been destroyed, hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded, millions displaced and Europe transformed into the most heavily militarised region on the continent since the Second World War.
Yet something appears to be changing.
For the first time in a long while, the political language coming from Moscow, Kyiv and Washington is beginning to converge around one word: peace.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has now acknowledged that there is a possibility of reaching a diplomatic settlement. More significantly, he has pointed to the involvement and influence of major powers, including the United States and China, in encouraging an end to the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also indicated that the war could end soon, while confirming that American negotiators are expected to travel to both Kyiv and Moscow. President Donald Trump has again expressed his desire to see the war brought to an end and has floated the prospect of another summit with Putin.
This is still a long way from peace. Surprisingly Putin, considered India’s greatest friend, has not publicly acknowledged the valiant efforts made by Indian premier Narendra Modi who has told Putin and Zelensky to end the war and take the Diplomacy, Talks and Dialogue route to end the war.
In fact, Putin’ statement comes immediately after Modi told him to end the war on his car ride with him to the Bishkek SCO summit. And diplomacy has finally begun to acquire a momentum that the battlefield has failed to produce.
Why is Putin talking differently? Putin’s latest remarks deserve attention precisely because Russia has spent much of the war insisting that Moscow’s objectives must be achieved before any meaningful settlement can occur.
His new language does not mean that Russia has abandoned its fundamental demands. Nor does it mean Moscow is prepared to return all occupied territory or accept every Ukrainian condition.
But the distinction is important. There is now an acknowledgement in Moscow that the war cannot simply be wished away by military means.
The Russian president has also complained about Ukrainian attacks on civilian targets, describing such attacks in exceptionally harsh terms. That accusation is politically useful to Moscow, but it also exposes the central contradiction of the moment: both sides continue to accuse the other of escalating the war while simultaneously talking about ending it.
The rhetoric is therefore moving in two directions at once — military escalation and diplomatic de-escalation. That is often how wars approach negotiations.
Zelensky’s calculation: For Zelensky, the calculation is equally difficult. Ukraine has demonstrated that it cannot be easily conquered. Russia has failed to achieve the rapid victory envisaged when its full-scale invasion began. But Ukraine also knows that defeating Russia militarily and recovering every inch of occupied territory is an extraordinarily expensive proposition.
Kyiv’s diplomatic position has consequently been evolving towards the search for a settlement that does not amount to surrender. Zelensky has spoken of ceasefire arrangements, troop withdrawals and buffer zones as elements of a possible framework. A joint plan discussed with American and European officials has reportedly included a ceasefire and mechanisms to separate the opposing forces.
The difficult question is what comes after the ceasefire. Ukraine wants security guarantees strong enough to prevent Russia from using a pause to rebuild its military and attack again. Russia, on the other hand, wants assurances about Ukraine’s military alignment and its future relationship with NATO. That is where the real peace negotiations will begin.
The exhaustion factor. There is another force at work which is rarely discussed with sufficient honesty: war fatigue. Russia has absorbed enormous military and economic costs. Ukraine has endured devastation on a scale unimaginable in peacetime. Europe has carried the burden of supporting Kyiv while simultaneously confronting higher defence spending, energy insecurity and the continuing possibility of a wider confrontation with Russia.
The United States, meanwhile, has discovered the uncomfortable reality that supplying a prolonged war is expensive and politically complicated. Nobody necessarily wants to admit defeat. Everybody has reasons to stop. That is precisely the kind of circumstance in which diplomacy can suddenly become more attractive than another year of fighting.
But the guns have not fallen silent. The danger is that diplomatic optimism may be running ahead of reality. Even as Putin talks about the possibility of peace, Russian and Ukrainian forces continue to attack one another. Ukrainian strikes inside Russia and Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities have continued. Recent exchanges have demonstrated how quickly apparently hopeful diplomacy can be overwhelmed by events on the ground.
The Institute for the Study of War has also cautioned that Russian claims about battlefield success should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that Moscow is preparing to compromise.
This is the paradox of the present moment. The war may be getting closer to negotiations precisely because neither side has been able to win it decisively.
The civilian question. One of the biggest obstacles to peace will be the question of attacks on civilians. Russia has objected strongly to Ukrainian attacks that it says endanger civilians and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine, meanwhile, has repeatedly accused Russia of deliberately attacking populated areas and civilian infrastructure.
The competing accusations cannot simply be brushed aside. Any credible ceasefire will require rules governing missiles, drones, energy infrastructure, ports, transport networks and other targets close to civilian populations. Without such rules, a ceasefire could become merely a pause before another round of escalation.
The United Nations has repeatedly stressed that there is no military solution to the conflict. That may sound obvious after four years of war. But it is perhaps the most important conclusion of all.
America’s role may be decisive. The United States remains the country capable of exerting pressure on both sides. Washington can influence Ukraine through military and financial support. It can influence Russia through sanctions, diplomacy and the prospect of eventual economic normalisation.
China’s role is also significant. Beijing has maintained close relations with Moscow while simultaneously presenting itself as a supporter of a negotiated settlement. Putin’s reference to both Washington and Beijing supporting a resolution suggests that Moscow recognises that the diplomatic equation is now broader than Russia and Ukraine alone.
The arrival of American negotiators in both capitals could therefore become an important test.
If Washington can persuade Moscow and Kyiv to move from discussing principles to negotiating the actual mechanics of a settlement, the current thaw could become something much more substantial.
Does peace really have a chance? Yes — but the opportunity is fragile. The biggest danger is confusing a desire to end the war with agreement on how to end it. Those are two very different things.
Territory remains unresolved. Security guarantees remain unresolved. Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO remains unresolved. Sanctions remain unresolved. The status of occupied territories remains unresolved. Reconstruction will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And neither Putin nor Zelensky can easily accept an agreement that can be portrayed at home as capitulation.
Yet history shows that wars do not necessarily end when one side wins. Some end when both sides conclude that continuing is worse than compromising. That may be where Russia and Ukraine are slowly arriving.
Eastern Europe is therefore standing at a dangerous crossroads. One road leads to another year of drones, missiles, trenches and funerals. The other leads towards a ceasefire, negotiations and eventually a political settlement.
The fact that Putin is publicly acknowledging the possibility of peace and Zelensky is talking about the war ending soon does not prove that peace is around the corner. But it does suggest that the psychological barrier to ending the war may finally be weakening.
After years in which diplomacy repeatedly appeared dead, the most important development may simply be that Moscow, Kyiv and Washington are once again talking seriously about how the guns might eventually fall silent.
Peace has a chance. Whether the politicians are prepared to pay its price is the question that remains. (IPA Service)
