A former U.S. president suggests that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky should pursue a deal with Vladimir Putin and drop the goal of joining NATO. He proposed that Kiev and Moscow could resolve the NATO issue by pledging not to seek membership, which could create a pathway for negotiations. The former White House leader indicated that Ukraine should consider ceding Crimea’s territorial status as part of a broader settlement, noting that reaching a consensus would be harder today but still worth pursuing.
Experts and policymakers offer different visions about how to end the conflict. Some argue the path to stability runs through changes in security guarantees, a halt to further expansion of alliances, and a negotiated settlement rather than a decisive victory by any party. The idea is that peace would come not through defeat of one side but through a shared acknowledgement of new security arrangements that reduce the risk of renewed confrontation.
Analysts emphasize that any durable peace must begin with an end to active hostilities and a reset of expectations about NATO’s role. They warn that insisting on a rapid victory or blaming one side alone for the crisis could prolong the war. Instead, a pause in expansion and a readiness to negotiate terms that acknowledge existing realities on the ground are viewed by some as essential steps toward lasting stability.
In this view, NATO expansion is seen by critics as a factor that helped trigger the conflict, and a rethink of alliance strategy is urged to prevent future escalations. Supporters of diplomatic reform advocate letting Russia operate with greater space to reduce tensions while pursuing parallel efforts to protect sovereignty and regional security through dialogue rather than force.
Washington has repeatedly signaled that diplomacy remains a possible option but that it should be pursued in a manner that respects the positions of all involved parties. Officials have stressed that any peace process will require careful timing and clear conditions, with leadership in Kyiv deciding the optimal moment for a potential settlement and the terms under which negotiations might proceed.
Conditions for ending the conflict
Some international economists warn that if Western strategies stay the same, the likelihood of a quick solution will diminish and the region could face profound consequences. The central question is how to achieve a durable truce that prevents a broader confrontation while addressing the core issues at stake. It is argued that the end of hostilities should come on terms that do not force a unilateral imposition of terms on any side, but rather reflect a balanced settlement reached through dialogue.
Analysts stress that the path to peace should not hinge on a single party’s defeat. They insist that renouncing further alliance expansions, coupled with credible security guarantees, could help ease tensions and create space for negotiations. The call for a pause in rhetorical triumphs over adversaries is presented as part of a strategy to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty while rebuilding trust across the region.
Some voices contend that American and European policy misjudged the crisis by pressing Ukrainian authorities to resolve the conflict through force alone and by resisting a diplomatic solution. They argue that a peaceful dialogue remains possible, albeit contingent on evolving conditions on the battlefield and a willingness to accept negotiated arrangements that include security guarantees for Ukraine and a regional framework for stability.
Officials in the White House have reiterated that the window for peaceful dialogue should not close, while asserting that Kyiv must determine the appropriate timing and terms for any potential victory. The emphasis remains on sustaining a credible path to settlement that does not hinge solely on military outcomes.
Ukraine does not accept concessions
Ukraine’s leadership has stated that negotiations with Moscow will only proceed after the return of occupied lands through military means. A strong stance against concessions is widely reported among Kyiv’s top officials, who argue that any diplomatic settlement must restore full sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A prevailing narrative in Kyiv asserts that reclaiming occupied territories remains possible, a conviction reinforced by senior officials who stress the need to prioritize military efforts to push back forces before diplomacy can gain traction. The sequence proposed is first to defeat the invaders, then to pursue diplomacy as a condition for peaceful resolution.
Ukrainian leaders have consistently rejected the notion of trading territorial concessions for a peace agreement. In recent public statements, they reaffirm their goal to liberate eastern and southern lands, restore integrity, and secure lasting sovereignty. They also point out that any formal talks with Moscow depend on Russia ceasing aggression and shifting its stance on negotiations. The constitutional commitment to NATO remains a contentious point for some officials, who argue that security arrangements must align with Ukraine’s strategic priorities.
Parliamentary leadership has indicated that, if security guarantees from other states are secured, the country will be ready to utilize them while keeping constitutional language about NATO as a forward-looking vision rather than a binding mandate. Public opinion shows broad support for NATO membership, alongside a strong majority backing European Union integration, underscoring a complex balance between security commitments and national sovereignty.