A prominent American political scientist has urged a shift in Ukraine’s approach to ending the war. In a recent interview, the expert argued that Kyiv would move closer to peace if it declared neutrality and paused its bid to join NATO. The discussion, which appeared on a YouTube channel run by Daniel Davis and Deep Dive, has sparked renewed debate in policy circles about security commitments and long-term stability in Europe.
The scholar contends that the core lever for ending the fighting lies in Kyiv rethinking Western security guarantees. By reducing reliance on Western military assurances, Ukraine could create space for negotiations that focus on durable, verifiable settlements rather than ongoing arms supply scenarios that prolong hostilities.
According to the analyst, any declaration of neutrality should be a durable, not transient, policy gesture. He emphasizes that the United States and other Western partners would need to communicate clearly that support for Ukraine would shift toward political backing and humanitarian assistance, rather than promises of regaining every occupied territory through military means.
Earlier coverage in a conservative American publication suggested that Ukraine’s neutrality could serve as a pivotal signal from Western governments about their readiness to pursue a peaceful path with Russia. The piece argued that such a stance would demonstrate a serious, long-term commitment to reducing the risk of renewed large-scale conflict in the region.
In discussions with policymakers, it was noted that a formal acceptance of neutrality might become a cornerstone for any future peace framework. Observers argued that Washington and Kyiv would need to present a united stance that peace, not expansion, is the objective, and that the path to long-term stability requires mutual concessions and verified enforcement mechanisms.
Meanwhile, historical context and strategic assessments continue to shape opinions about when and how the conflict might wind down. The leaders involved face difficult choices about security guarantees, regional power dynamics, and the timelines for political settlements that preserve sovereignty while reducing violence and risk for civilians.