Nearly four years into the Russia–Ukraine war, the search for peace has become one of the most intricate diplomatic challenges of the 21st century. Despite sustained international pressure, repeated mediation efforts, and the recent trilateral talks hosted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a comprehensive and durable settlement remains elusive.
The reasons are structural rather than procedural: irreconcilable territorial claims, incompatible security visions, deep mutual mistrust, domestic political constraints, and the absence of a shared post-war regional order.
Yet diplomacy has not collapsed. The Abu Dhabi talks—bringing together the United States, Russia, and Ukraine—have produced limited but tangible outcomes, including prisoner exchanges and commitments to continued engagement. These developments underscore a crucial reality: diplomacy can still function, but it is not yet capable of resolving a war driven by maximalist objectives on both sides.
Understanding why peace remains out of reach requires revisiting how the conflict evolved, assessing past and current diplomatic efforts, and examining the enduring obstacles that trap negotiators in a cycle of dialogue without resolution.
How the war began and its escalation
The roots of the Russia–Ukraine war lie in a complex mix of history, identity, and geopolitics. The immediate origins date back to 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea following Ukraine’s pro-West Maidan revolution. Moscow framed the move as the protection of Russian speakers and strategic interests; Kyiv and the wider international community viewed it as a violation of international law.
Soon after, armed separatist movements—backed politically, militarily, and logistically by Russia—ignited conflict in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Minsk agreements that followed succeeded only in freezing, not resolving, the conflict.
The decisive escalation came on 24 February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin justified the operation as necessary to “denazify” Ukraine and pre-empt NATO expansion. Ukraine and most of the world rejected these claims, seeing the invasion as an unprovoked assault on a sovereign state.
Since then, the war has hardened into a grinding, high-intensity conflict, marked by entrenched front lines, large-scale missile and drone strikes, and extensive civilian suffering. Roughly 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, remains under Russian control. Millions have been displaced, tens of thousands killed, and critical infrastructure damaged or destroyed. Beyond Ukraine, the war has reshaped global energy markets, disrupted food supplies, and accelerated geopolitical polarisation.
Peace proposals and diplomatic efforts to date
From the earliest weeks of the war, peace proposals have proliferated. These have ranged from immediate ceasefire initiatives to comprehensive frameworks addressing territory, security guarantees, sanctions relief, and reconstruction. None has bridged the core divide between Kyiv and Moscow.
Ukraine’s position has remained consistent: restoration of internationally recognised borders, accountability for aggression, and binding security guarantees to prevent future attacks. While Kyiv has shown flexibility on the form of these guarantees, it has refused to accept arrangements that would leave it strategically vulnerable.
Russia’s proposals, by contrast, have focused on consolidating territorial gains and preventing Ukraine’s long-term military alignment with the West. Moscow has demanded recognition—explicit or implicit—of its control over occupied regions and legal assurances limiting Ukraine’s security partnerships.
These positions collide at three fundamental points: sovereignty, territory, and the post-war security architecture of Eastern Europe. As long as these disputes remain unresolved, peace initiatives are constrained to managing the conflict rather than ending it.
The UAE talks: A tentative diplomatic opening
Against this backdrop, the UAE has emerged as an unexpected but credible venue for renewed diplomacy. In late January and early February 2026, Abu Dhabi hosted trilateral talks involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine—the most visible high-level engagement between the parties in months.
The choice of the UAE was not accidental. Abu Dhabi has cultivated a reputation as a neutral interlocutor with working relationships across geopolitical divides, and it has previously facilitated sensitive humanitarian exchanges.
While the talks stopped well short of a peace agreement, they yielded several notable outcomes; namely, prisoner exchanges, restored diplomatic channels and commitment to continued dialogue. Ukraine and Russia agreed to swap more than 300 prisoners of war, the first major exchange in months. Though limited, this represented a concrete humanitarian gain.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff characterised the engagement as a necessary step toward rebuilding diplomatic momentum. Russia acknowledged improved interaction with the United States, while Ukraine reiterated its demand for credible security guarantees as the foundation of any settlement.
The UAE has signalled its willingness to remain engaged, positioning itself as a facilitator of dialogue rather than a broker of grand bargains.
Why peace remains out of reach
Despite renewed diplomacy, several structural barriers continue to block a lasting settlement.
1. Territorial disputes and sovereignty: Territory remains the most intractable issue. Russia occupies large swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine and has unilaterally claimed some of these regions. Moscow seeks recognition of these changes as a basis for peace. Kyiv rejects this outright, arguing that conceding territory would legitimise aggression and invite future revisionism.
These positions are fundamentally incompatible without one side abandoning a core national principle.
2. Security guarantees and alliance structures: Ukraine views robust security guarantees as non-negotiable. Russia views the same guarantees—particularly if backed by Western military power—as an existential threat. This clash over Europe’s security architecture leaves little room for compromise within existing frameworks.
3. Mutual mistrust and battlefield realities: Years of intense fighting have eroded trust to near zero. Both sides suspect the other of negotiating tactically—using talks to regroup militarily, recalibrate strategy, or shape international opinion rather than pursue genuine compromise. Russia’s continued strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, even as diplomats meet, reinforce Kyiv’s scepticism about Moscow’s commitment to de-escalation. Ukraine, for its part, continues offensive and defensive operations while negotiating, reinforcing Russian claims that Kyiv seeks battlefield advantage alongside diplomacy. This dynamic—talks conducted in parallel with sustained military pressure—undermines confidence-building and limits the scope of what negotiators can realistically achieve.
4. Domestic political pressures: Internal political constraints further narrow the room for manoeuvre. In Ukraine, public opinion remains firmly opposed to territorial concessions. Any leadership perceived as trading land for peace risks severe political backlash and a crisis of legitimacy. In Russia, the war has become closely intertwined with regime credibility and national prestige. Concessions that appear to acknowledge failure or defeat could generate internal instability. As a result, both leaderships are constrained not just by strategic logic but by political survival.
5. External geopolitics and third-party influence: The involvement of external powers is both indispensable and destabilising. Western military and financial support is critical to Ukraine’s resilience, but it also reinforces Russian narratives of a proxy war. Meanwhile, actors such as China, Türkiye, and Gulf states pursue mediation while safeguarding their own strategic interests.
Even neutral facilitators like the UAE must balance competing expectations, ensuring credibility with all sides while avoiding the perception of alignment. This crowded diplomatic landscape complicates coordination and slows progress toward a coherent peace framework.
What is at stake if negotiations fail
The cost of failure is severe. Continued conflict will prolong human suffering, deepen Ukraine’s economic devastation, and sustain instability along Europe’s eastern flank. A prolonged stalemate risks entrenching de facto partition, militarising borders, and normalising prolonged high-intensity conflict in Europe.
Globally, the failure of diplomacy would weaken norms against territorial conquest and embolden revisionist actors elsewhere. The longer the war drags on, the harder reintegration, reconstruction, and reconciliation will become.
Recommendations for breaking the deadlock
Despite the obstacles, pathways—however narrow—still exist.
1. Build on incremental diplomatic progress: Rather than seeking an immediate comprehensive settlement, negotiators should focus on incremental, verifiable steps: local ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges, and de-escalation zones. These measures reduce violence and create political space for broader negotiations.
2. Broaden mediation and increase inclusivity: Neutral and trusted mediators, including the UAE and multilateral institutions, should play an expanded role. Inclusivity does not mean diluting core issues but ensuring sustained dialogue insulated from battlefield shocks and political theatrics.
3. Develop creative security frameworks: Binary choices—NATO membership versus exclusion—may be politically untenable. Alternative arrangements such as multinational monitoring missions, legally binding non-aggression commitments, or layered security guarantees could provide deterrence without triggering maximalist resistance.
4. Address territory through transitional arrangements: Territorial disputes could be managed through temporary administrative regimes under international supervision, with deferred final-status decisions. While politically sensitive, transitional models have precedent and may offer a face-saving path away from permanent deadlock.
5. Link peace to reconstruction and economic incentives: Peace must be tied to tangible benefits. Reconstruction aid, investment frameworks, and calibrated sanctions relief—conditional on verified compliance—could incentivise sustained commitment to negotiated outcomes.
Conclusion: Peace must be negotiated, not assumed
The Russia–Ukraine war has reshaped Europe’s security landscape and tested the resilience of the international order. The UAE-hosted talks represent a meaningful diplomatic moment—not because they resolved the conflict, but because they demonstrated that dialogue remains possible even amid entrenched hostility.
They have stabilised diplomacy, not settled the war. In a conflict defined by maximalist aims, that distinction matters.
A durable peace will not emerge through declarations, deadlines, or diplomatic symbolism alone. It will require sustained political will, incremental trust-building, and creative frameworks that address security, sovereignty, and human dignity without demanding unconditional surrender from either side.
The road ahead will be long and uneven. But the alternative—perpetual conflict, deepening division, and normalised violence—is a burden neither the region nor the world can afford.
(Lt Gen Campose is the former Vice Chief of the Indian Army. He has authored the book ‘A National Strategy for India – the Way Forward’)
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK)