The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ
For more than three years, Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in a deadly conflict that has resulted in thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars spent on arms and military equipment, and repeated calls for peace.
Yet, diplomacy has been powerless, and despite numerous statements from Kyiv and Moscow, the sides remain divided. But what prevents Russia and Ukraine from securing a diplomatic breakthrough?
There are four major issues preventing the war in Ukraine from concluding via diplomatic talks. These causes can be categorised into two groups – structural impediments and operational or outcome-based challenges.
Although the sides reached a stalemate on the battlefield, the current situation is far from a mutually hurting stalemate, a phenomenon where neither side can win, and continuing fighting is damaging to both.
Since the start of the war in 2022, Russia has relied heavily on its numerically superior pool of military equipment and population, while Ukraine bets on Western arms, NATO support, and cash injections. This strategic calculation remains unchanged even today, signalling that despite the years of fighting, both sides perceive that they can outlast their adversary.
Another structural hurdle lies in the root cause of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The source of the issues between the conflicting parties is the incompatibility of the two standpoints. The Kremlin perceives Kyiv’s policies as a threat to Moscow’s security, while Ukraine seeks to further an approach that will enable the country to distance itself from Russia, ensuring decision-making sovereignty in its domestic and foreign policies. The clash of these two strategic visions is the core issue preventing Ukraine and Russia from peaceful coexistence.
Fundamentally, both Kyiv and Moscow view the war as a zero-sum game, where the losses of one side increase the payout of the other. It would be hard to disagree with such views, as the war between the two nations is not limited to territorial gains or losses.
From a purely political perspective, for Russia, losing in this conflict bears the risk of forfeiting its political prestige, power projection capacity, and influence in strategic regions. For Ukraine, losing this war could mean relinquishing its sovereign foreign policy-making capability.
Importantly, neither side reached its strategic objectives since the start of the war. Deep-rooted mistrust, winner-takes-all perception, and inability to reach political objectives on the battlefield are the major structural impediments that dictate the positions of Kyiv and Moscow behind the negotiation table.
Yet, while these constraints are critical, they are only a part of the explanation for diplomatic failure. These problems are merely one side of a problem, influenced and amplified by another group of challenges, discussed below.
Beyond structural issues and incompatibility, another set of issues hampers diplomatic progress.
The term ‘operational and outcome-based challenges’ encapsulates two major hurdles: the inability to address the issue of territories and the lack of a credible mechanism preventing the conflict from reigniting in the future.
The territorial question is at the heart of the problem. For Ukraine, conceding the loss of territories would not only undermine its sovereignty but also risk legitimising conquest and power politics.
Meanwhile, Russia has formally incorporated internationally recognised territories of Ukraine into its territory, claiming them as part of the country. Consequently, the sides are at an impasse, as concessions on this matter are likely perceived as a sign of weakness and a strategic defeat.
Equally important is another part – the problem of post-conflict peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Earlier agreements between Russia and Ukraine, namely the Minsk Agreements, have failed, paving the way for renewed fighting and eventually an outbreak of war in 2022. Although these agreements had provisions on security and eventual revival of economic relations, a lack of a proper implementation framework meant that none of the provisions have been carried out.
This dynamic suggests that agreeing on a deal that would merely postpone the final resolution of the conflict may lead to another round of violence in the future. With prospects of fighting resuming in the future, both sides fear that making concessions will adversely affect their positions, interests, and needs in the future.
Failed diplomatic efforts suggest several lessons for policymakers and experts.
One important obstacle to successful peace talks is the lack of a mechanism that would prevent the conflict from intensifying in the future.
Another critical element that needs to be addressed to make the sides more cooperative in negotiations and mediations is the elimination of the zero-sum mindset. As we can see from the case of the Ukrainian conflict, an all-or-nothing perspective creates tunnel vision, greatly diminishing the prospect of resolving conflicts.
This zero-concessions mindset is particularly harmful when dealing with territorial issues. One way to eliminate this narrow way of thinking for mediators would be to secure micro-agreements on several issues, instead of aiming at securing one big package deal. While this approach may seem to be more resource-intensive, it may encourage the sides to make concessions, as a non-cooperative side may lose out.
A large-scale swap of prisoners of war secured during Istanbul talks suggests that Russia and Ukraine are capable of securing small agreements, which do not threaten their long-term strategic interests. Mediators need to leverage this knowledge to obtain further diplomatic successes.
Without addressing these fundamental issues, Ukraine risks becoming a modern-day blueprint for protracted frozen conflicts, impacting countless lives and future generations.
Houthi attacks target Riyadh amid concerns over Saudi oil supplies, as Iran says it will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until its conditions are m...
The death toll from an overnight Russian attack on the Kyiv region rose to four, including three children, Kyiv regional authorities said on Sunday...
Uzbekistan’s grape exports have grown rapidly. In January-August 2025, the country exported 86,200 tonnes of fresh grapes worth $78.3 million...
Iran's Revolutionary Guards Navy said a Togo-flagged oil tanker was struck while attempting to make an “illegal passage” through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian state media said early on Friday.
Saudi civil defence sent an all-clear on Saturday after issuing alerts for a second time for potential danger in Riyadh and the city of Al-Kharj east of the capital, amid an uptick in attacks by Iran-aligned Houthis on the Gulf country.
The European Union will disburse €3.3 billion ($3.8 billion) to Ukraine for missiles and drones, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said after a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The U.S. State Department approved a $2.7 billion military sale to Ukraine for air-defence development upgrades, along with related equipment and services, the department said. Meanwhile, Ukrainian authorities reported at least 10 people had died in Russian attacks over the last 24 hours.
Three students were killed in a school shooting in the southern Philippines on Friday, including a 16-year-old suspected gunman who turned the gun on himself, provincial officials said.
Military power is usually measured by what a country possesses: fighter aircraft, tanks, warships, missile systems, ammunition stocks and defence budgets. These indicators remain important, but recent wars have exposed a weakness in this way of thinking.
There are moments in history when societies discover that ideas they believed had been buried are not dead at all. They have simply been waiting for another political, economic or social crisis to bring them back to the surface.
The next oil shock may not begin at an oilfield. It may begin when a tanker captain refuses to sail, an insurer withdraws cover, a bank declines to finance a cargo, or a refinery discovers that crude oil is available but diesel is not.
BRICS has the scale to challenge the Western-led order. But it still lacks the political unity and financial machinery needed to turn its multipolar rhetoric into power.
Opening the Türkiye-Armenia frontier could cut costs, revive rail links and bring visitors through Kars. But traffic is not prosperity. Unless goods stop, businesses grow and jobs remain, Kars may become a corridor from which others profit.
You can download the AnewZ application from Play Store and the App Store.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Leave the first comment