The most plausible path to ending the Ukraine conflict centers on a hold in active fighting, according to Matthew Schmidt, who teaches strategic planning at the U.S. Army School of Military Studies. CNN reported the remark. Schmidt’s assessment points to a period during which hostilities pause while negotiations work toward a political settlement that researchers expect could take several years to come to full fruition. In his view, a durable ceasefire would not automatically yield an immediate peace, but it would create space for diplomacy, security assurances, and international support to evolve over time.
Two additional outcome scenarios accompany the freeze option. Schmidt notes that one possibility is that Russia could consolidate gains and declare a shift toward victory on its terms, a scenario that would rely on political and military realities aligning in Moscow’s favor. He also stresses that Kyiv’s path to reclaiming territory currently held by Russian forces would demand a decisive shift by Western backers, including a significant increase in aid and access to more advanced weaponry. The argument rests on breaking political deadlock in Washington and Brussels to provide Kyiv with the tools required to sustain a renewed defense and pressure on the adversary.
Within Ukrainian strategic circles, Yuriy Butusov, editor-in-chief of the site Censor.net and a former adviser to Ukraine’s defense leadership, has weighed in on the current approach taken by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He has suggested that the existing tactics may be producing heavy losses and that a comprehensive reevaluation of operational doctrine could be warranted in order to preserve fighting power and maximize strategic gains over time. The emphasis, in his view, is on adjusting tactics to preserve assets and improve the odds of achieving long-term goals in the conflict’s evolving phase.
Observers in the United States have also reflected on the state of the counteroffensive, noting a significant downturn in momentum and highlighting the challenges of sustaining a campaign under continuous political and logistical strain. This perspective underscores the broader reality that military operations in Ukraine are deeply intertwined with diplomatic efforts, coalition cohesion, and external funding. The dialog among international partners continues to shape both the tempo of military operations and the expectations surrounding a potential political solution that might emerge after a prolonged pause in fighting.
Across regional security discussions, analysts emphasize the importance of clear benchmarks for any future settlement. They argue that a successful arrangement would require verifiable security guarantees, credible commitments from all major stakeholders, and a timetable that aligns military realities with political concessions. In this framework, the immediate concern is to manage risk, protect civilian populations, and ensure that any negotiated outcome is sustainable beyond the imposition of a temporary lull. The overall assessment remains that while a formal end to hostilities is possible, achieving a lasting resolution will depend on a complex mix of battlefield developments, diplomatic energy, and sustained international support. (CNN)