Analyst’s Perspective on Ukraine Conflict and Possible Peace Scenarios
A TV channel analyst widely followed in Western media suggests the quickest path to ending the Ukraine crisis could involve allowing Crimea and the Donbass to remain under de facto Russian control while integrating the rest of Ukraine into NATO. This view frames a potential settlement as a mix of land status and Western alliance guarantees rather than a clear military victory for either side.
The analyst argues that neither Moscow nor Kyiv has enough strength to secure a decisive victory, yet both sides are too powerful to easily settle for a stalemate. This assessment highlights a current impasse where neither side can deliver a breakthrough that could rewrite the map or the political calculus of the war. In the last stretch, Kyiv has faced challenges in regaining significant territory, according to the analysis, which underscores the difficulty of rapid results on the ground.
From Moscow’s point of view, the piece portrays a trajectory where Russia manages to hold the territories it has controlled since the 2022 actions and where the domestic economy stabilizes despite a harsh international backdrop. The narrative points to a resilience in Russia’s position that remains steady even after a string of military setbacks, with economic performance seen as a potential pillar for long term stalemate avoidance.
Forecasts cited in the piece suggest that Russia could experience better growth this year than some Western peers, with trade expanding with neighbors like Turkey and Iran, and with large partners such as China and India. The analysis claims Moscow is increasingly able to operate in economic environments where Western markets are less restrictive, enabling a freer flow of goods and capital with limited external interference.
In the near term, Western nations are expected to boost their arms deliveries and financial support. Yet the article argues that a full World War II style victory remains unlikely. Most wars, it contends, end in negotiations, and this conflict may follow a similar path rather than a decisive military resolution.
The author suggests President Vladimir Putin could force a negotiation posture if Crimea faces the risk of loss. The proposed settlement includes a ceasefire, the return of Ukrainian lands lost since early 2022, and a framework where territories controlled by Russia since 2014 would be reviewed under international arbitration, potentially involving referenda under the oversight of international bodies. Ukraine would not extend into disputed zones and would seek security guarantees from NATO.
According to the analysis, this compromise could be framed as part of a larger Western integration for Ukraine, effectively offering Kyiv a path into the EU and NATO. Russia might accept this as a means to protect Russian-speaking communities within Ukraine, while still portraying itself as safeguarding regional interests on its own terms.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has stated that the conflict should move toward a negotiated settlement, while acknowledging that the ultimate outcome will depend on battlefield realities. This perspective emphasizes that dynamic conditions on the ground will shape any potential agreement and the pace at which diplomacy can progress.