Have you ever watched two people who absolutely refuse to back down, even when everyone around them can see the fight is destroying everything? That’s pretty much where we are with Russia and Ukraine right now.
This week, while on a trip to India, the Russian leader delivered one of the clearest messages he’s given in months: Moscow will take the entire Donbas region by force unless Ukrainian troops leave voluntarily. No ambiguity, no diplomatic fluff—just a blunt choice between surrender or more war.
And honestly? That single sentence probably killed whatever fragile hope remained for a near-term peace agreement.
The One Issue That Breaks Every Negotiation
Territory. It always comes back to territory.
Russia already controls roughly 80-85% of the Donbas—the coal-rich eastern area made up of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Capturing the rest would give Moscow something it has wanted since 2014: a solid land corridor from the Russian border all the way to annexed Crimea. Militarily and economically, that corridor matters enormously.
From Kyiv’s perspective, though, giving up Donbas permanently is political suicide. It would mean accepting the permanent loss of land where millions of Ukrainian citizens lived before the war. No elected leader can sign that and expect to stay in power—or sometimes even stay alive.
Why “Frozen Conflict” Isn’t an Option Either
Some analysts used to float the idea of a Korea-style frozen conflict—armistice lines, no formal peace treaty, everyone just stops shooting. That idea is dead now.
Russia isn’t interested in freezing the lines where they are; it wants the entire Donbas written into any agreement as Russian territory. Ukraine isn’t willing to freeze anything that legitimizes the loss of its land. And the West, at least for the moment, keeps saying any deal has to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and internationally recognized borders.
Three completely incompatible positions. No wonder talks keep collapsing.
“Russia has failed to take Donbas by force since 2014, and Ukrainians have made clear they will never accept the illegal theft of their territory. No deal is possible without Ukrainian consent, and twelve years of resistance prove they won’t give it.”
– University lecturer in East European politics
What the Latest American Proposals Actually Said
Reports about the recent U.S. ideas floating around Moscow and Kyiv paint a grim picture. Early drafts apparently contained language that would have effectively recognized Russian control over parts of Donbas. When Ukrainian officials saw that, they pushed back—hard.
The revised versions walked some of it back, but the core problem remains: Russia insists on territorial concessions as the price of peace, while Ukraine insists territorial concessions are the one thing it can never offer.
Putin’s latest public statement feels like a deliberate line in the sand: “We’re not budging.”
The Battlefield Reality Russia Is Banking On
Here’s the uncomfortable truth few people in Western capitals want to say out loud: Russia is still advancing, even if the gains are painfully slow and astronomically expensive.
Villages fall at the rate of one or two per week. The front line creeps forward a few hundred meters at a time. Moscow seems willing to absorb staggering losses if it means eventually controlling the last 15-20% of Donbas it doesn’t yet hold.
In private, some European officials admit they worry the strategy might actually work—not because Russia is militarily brilliant, but because it has convinced itself time is on its side.
- Higher tolerance for casualties than any Western democracy could imagine
- An economy shifted almost entirely onto a war footing
- Growing military production despite sanctions
- No domestic political price for continuing the fight
Add those factors together and you understand why Moscow feels it can simply wait everyone else out.
Europe’s Quiet Panic About American Commitment
Behind closed doors in Brussels and several European capitals, the real conversation right now isn’t about victory—it’s about what happens if the United States dramatically scales back or stops military aid entirely.
One former senior diplomat put it bluntly this week: “If Washington walks away after failing to broker a deal, Europe simply doesn’t have the industrial capacity to replace American supplies fast enough. We’re talking months, not years, before Ukraine runs into serious problems.”
That fear explains the frantic European diplomacy we’ve seen lately—countries promising new artillery shells, air-defense systems, even long-range missiles. It’s not altruism; it’s survival instinct.
Markets Are Pricing In a Long War (Whether They Admit It or Not)
Look at defense stocks across Europe—up anywhere from 40% to over 200% since the full-scale invasion began. Energy prices still carry a “war premium” baked in every time tensions spike. Agricultural commodity traders still watch Black Sea shipping news like hawks.
Investors might talk about “normalization,” but their money votes for prolongation.
I’ve found that when entire sectors trade at persistent premiums because of one single geopolitical risk, the market is telling you it doesn’t actually expect that risk to disappear anytime soon.
So When Could This Actually End?
Realistically, three scenarios still exist—none of them particularly cheerful:
- Russia achieves its minimal territorial goals (full Donbas + land corridor) and declares victory, freezing the conflict on its terms.
- Ukraine receives a massive surge in Western weapons and manages to push Russian forces back significantly, forcing Moscow to reconsider its demands.
- Both sides exhaust themselves to the point where a compromise neither wants becomes the only thing left—probably some version of delayed-status referenda supervised by international observers (an idea everyone currently hates).
Scenario one feels closest right now, which is why Putin’s tone has grown more confident rather than conciliatory.
Scenario two would require political decisions in Washington and several European capitals that haven’t been taken yet—and might never be.
Scenario three usually needs years more blood and treasure than anyone is openly willing to admit.
“I don’t think the war is going to end anytime soon unless Ukraine capitulates on territory and NATO membership—things that are basically impossible for any Ukrainian leader to concede and survive politically.”
– Former British ambassador to Washington
In my experience watching these kinds of conflicts drag on, the moment one side publicly draws a red line as starkly as Moscow just did, the odds of meaningful compromise in the next six to twelve months drop close to zero.
We’re likely looking at another winter of intense fighting, more destroyed cities, and continued global ripple effects—from food prices to defense budgets to energy markets.
Perhaps the most frustrating part is how predictable this has become. Everyone can see the core impasse, yet no one has found a way around it. Until that fundamental disagreement over land is resolved—or one side forcibly imposes its will—the war grinds on.
And right now, the latest warning from the Kremlin suggests Moscow is betting it can be the one to impose its will, one painful kilometer at a time.
Sadly, history teaches us that wars started over territory rarely end until one side physically controls the ground it claims—or loses the capacity to keep fighting for it. Everything else at this point is just noise.
