Ending The Ukraine War —
between realism and nuclear risk
by SANE | June 15, 2025
Now in its fourth year, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine shows no sign of ending. Despite the immense toll in lives lost, infrastructure destroyed, and geopolitical fault lines widened, the prevailing discourse in many Western capitals remains tethered to the idea that Ukraine can and must keep fighting. But this belief, however sincerely held, is not only divorced from strategic reality. It is actively dangerous.
The notion that Ukraine can, say, reclaim its territory through military force ignores the nuclear dimension that defines this war. Russia is not simply a conventional adversary. It is a nuclear-armed state with both the capability and doctrine to use nuclear weapons if it believes its vital interests are under existential threat. And make no mistake: for the Kremlin, a military defeat in Ukraine would likely meet those conditions.
Those who speak of victory often fail to explain how, exactly, a nuclear-armed Russia would allow itself to be defeated. Or what happens when it refuses. The reality is that the only path to full territorial reclamation through military means would create precisely the conditions under which Russia might resort to nuclear weapons. To press forward without acknowledging this risk is to play a high-stakes game of strategic roulette, not just for Ukraine, but for the world.
Much public debate continues to be shaped by analogies to World War II and the specter of appeasement. But the comparison to Munich or to Hitler collapses under the weight of a single fact: Putin has nuclear weapons.
Unlike Hitler, Putin cannot simply be cornered and defeated. Nuclear weapons, odious as they are, change the rules of engagement. They confer a degree of impunity that cannot be wished away or morally repudiated into irrelevance.
Refusing to negotiate because it may appear to “reward aggression” is not a strategy. It is an emotional reflex. And in this context, appeasement is not the danger. Escalation is.
The battlefield is no longer yielding decisive outcomes. Each offensive grinds toward stalemate, each escalation risks catastrophe.
After three years of war, the strategy – or lack thereof – is alarmingly adrift. The goals remain nebulous. Is the objective to restore pre-2014 borders? To degrade Russian military capability? To remove Putin from power? What is the exit ramp? These questions go unanswered even as Western aid continues to flow and Ukrainian forces continue to absorb enormous losses.
Some argue that negotiating with Putin would set a dangerous precedent, that it would embolden other autocrats and condone aggression. But that precedent has already been set – not by diplomacy, but by the existence of nuclear weapons. Their mere possession, coupled with the willingness to exploit them as a shield for conventional aggression, confers a level of strategic insulation from consequences. This is the world as it is, not as it should be. And nuclear weapons will be subject to such abuse for as long as they exist.
The Limits of the Military Track
The emotional impulse to punish Putin, to deny him any gains, to resist any semblance of compromise, is understandable. But this war is not only defining for Ukraine – it is defining for Putin himself. It has become the centerpiece of his political and historical legacy.
For the Kremlin, the war is framed not simply as a regional skirmish, but as an existential struggle with the West. To imagine that Russia will give up territory under conditions of defeat is to misunderstand both the stakes and the psychology of the regime.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership continues to be an untenable idea. From a Russian strategic standpoint, the idea of a bordering state joining a hostile, nuclear-armed military alliance is intolerable. And however just the aspiration may be in the abstract, NATO membership for Ukraine is both unfeasible and, under current circumstances, counterproductive.
No major power – whether in the East or West – would today accept the presence of an adversarial nuclear alliance directly on its border.
An eventual settlement can and must be structured to recognize legitimate security interests on both sides. It must include credible enforcement mechanisms, international guarantees, and accountability provisions for war crimes. It will not be perfect. But perfection is not the standard. The standard is ending the war when the gains of military means have been exhausted and recognized.
The Urgent Need for a Peace Plan
Despite the scale and stakes of the Ukraine war, there is still no serious international effort to craft a comprehensive peace plan. Military support for Ukraine has been coordinated and sustained. Diplomacy, by contrast, has been vague, reactive, and largely absent. This is a strategic failure.
What is needed is a concrete, diplomatically backed framework that addresses security guarantees, territorial disputes, nuclear risks, economic recovery, and transitional justice. Crucially, this must be developed alongside the conflict, not delayed until a military breakthrough.
Without such a plan, fighting becomes the default. Leaders warn of escalation and humanitarian disaster, but these warnings must lead to action. Otherwise, the logic of war will prevail by inertia alone.
Key Elements for Negotiation
No peace agreement can succeed without directly addressing the core issues at the heart of the Ukraine war. A durable settlement must provide clear, credible approaches to several interconnected challenges, including:
Security Guarantees for Ukraine
Ukraine must not emerge from this war as vulnerable as it entered it. While NATO membership may be off the table, alternative models – such as binding multilateral guarantees or international peacekeeping forces – can offer credible protection without provoking further escalation.
Status of Occupied Territories
Territorial disputes are politically explosive. Instead of binary outcomes, creative compromises such as phased transitions, special autonomy, or internationally supervised referenda could offer ways to resolve claims without endorsing aggression.
Neutrality and Alignment
Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation lies at the center of the conflict. A settlement could involve formal neutrality paired with deep EU integration – balancing Ukraine’s sovereignty with Russian concerns and reducing the threat perception that fuels the war.
Accountability and Transitional Justice
Justice for war crimes is essential but must be balanced with political feasibility. Hybrid models – combining prosecutions for key offenders, truth commissions, and victim reparations – can advance accountability while keeping peace negotiations viable.
Economic Recovery and Reconstruction
Ukraine’s postwar recovery will require massive investment and reform. International donors must commit to long-term rebuilding efforts, possibly using frozen Russian assets, while ensuring that reconstruction supports governance, cohesion, and national resilience.
A Final Reckoning
As the war in Ukraine grinds on, the world stands at a threshold. The human toll is staggering: hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions displaced, cities destroyed, and societies scarred.
The conflict has shaken global markets, strained international institutions, and revived fears of great power confrontation. Yet no coherent plan exists for how it might end. This failure of imagination – and of political courage – may prove the war’s most enduring and dangerous legacy.
So far, military aid and sanctions have outpaced diplomacy. Without a political strategy, international support risks entrenching the war rather than ending it. A coordinated push toward peace is needed – anchored in principles of sovereignty and security, but also grounded in realism.
Ukraine has become a symbol of resistance to aggression, and that symbolism matters. But it is not a substitute for strategy, and no strategy is viable without an exit plan. A war without an off-ramp is not a war to win, but one to bleed by. The idea that it can continue indefinitely without catastrophic escalation is both delusional and reckless.
The threat of nuclear use, once unthinkable, now shadows every battlefield decision. Miscalculation or desperation could turn provocation into disaster.
There is no victory without compromise. Total triumph for either side is a fantasy. Ukraine is unlikely to retake all its territory by force without unacceptable risk. Russia cannot subdue Ukraine without provoking deeper resistance and isolation. Peace lies between absolutes – in diplomacy, security guarantees, and painful but necessary concessions.
The urgent question is no longer how to fight this war – but how to end it.