Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: Sketching the uncomfortable path to peace

Diplomacy Watch: Sketching the uncomfortable path to peace

There may not be a just way to end the war, but some options are morally better than an endless, bloody stalemate.

Europe

In a Wednesday press conference in Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky highlighted the moral difficulties facing any push toward peace in his country.

“I don’t know what just peace is,” Zelensky lamented, calling it “a very philosophical question.”

“For all of us, just peace is different,” he continued. “For me, as a president, just peace is no compromises as to the sovereignty, freedom, and territorial integrity of my country [and] payback for all the damages inflicted by Russian aggression.”

But, Zelensky noted, that formula may not satisfy the Ukrainian parents who have lost their children to Russia’s guns. “No compensations or reparations are of consequence [for them]. They live by revenge.”

Unfortunately, he may be right. There is likely no way to achieve a moral end to this brutal war. But that leads to an important question: If there can’t be a just peace, then what’s the best realistic option to end the conflict?

Historian Vladislav Zubok sketched out an answer to that question in Foreign Affairs this week. For Zubok, a realistic peace will require both sides to make significant compromises, lest the conflict turn into a grinding war of attrition. “[T]he West’s current approach to simply let the war continue, though morally satisfying and politically popular, is risky,” Zubok argues, noting that it “subjects Ukrainians to the continual horrors of conflict.”

“What is missing, then, is a coherent political plan to bring an end to the suffering, and to reassure Ukrainians that Russia will not begin a new war at the earliest opportunity, even if Putin remains in power,” he continues. “That will require the Russians to accept a defeat but also require the Ukrainians to accept that complete victory may be unobtainable.”

Ukrainians, of course, are not the only ones who will have to swallow a bitter pill. As Zubok notes, the West has only used sticks with Russia in response to the conflict, but an end to the war will require carrots as well. “The West must be prepared to offer a map for the Russian elites and general population, outlining how they can end their isolation, free themselves of sanctions, and remove their pariah status,” he writes.

“Publicizing a map toward negotiations now, while Putin continues his barbaric war and millions of Ukrainians suffer, does not constitute appeasement of Russia or condone Moscow’s aggression,” Zubok concludes. 

“On the contrary, it would be a prudent, strategic, and realist political move by the West and Ukraine to address the large and growing number of Russians who would prefer peace but abhor a choice between war and defeat.”

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— Career diplomat Lynne Tracy will take over as the new U.S. ambassador to Russia following her Wednesday Senate confirmation, according to AP News. In Responsible Statecraft, James Carden noted that Tracy is “​​a well regarded member of the senior foreign service” but worried that her “activist mindset” could damage chances for improved ties between Washington and Moscow.

— Russian President Vladimir Putin said there are “no funding restrictions” on the needs of Russia’s army, signaling that Moscow is prepared for a long-term conflict, according to Newsweek.

— French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that European leaders must “gain more autonomy on technology and defense capabilities, including from the U.S.,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Macron also reiterated his stance that, in order to end the war in Ukraine, there must be an agreement that provides security guarantees for all affected parties, including Russia. “This means that one of the essential points we must address — as President Putin has always said — is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” the French leader argued.

— In the Spectator, Henry Kissinger argued that it’s time to start pushing for peace talks in Ukraine. “The goal of a peace process would be twofold: to confirm the freedom of Ukraine and to define a new international structure, especially for Central and Eastern Europe,” Kissinger writes. “Eventually Russia should find a place in such an order.”

— On Wednesday, Russia and China began a week of joint naval exercises in the East China Sea, according to Al Jazeera. Chinese officials said the drills are “directed at demonstrating the determination and capability of the two sides,” adding that they will “further deepen” ties between the two countries.

U.S. State Department news:

In a Tuesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the Biden administration remains opposed to designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. “We’re working with Congress on a potential alternative that would allow us to continue to increase the costs on the Kremlin and those who are responsible for Russia’s war against Ukraine without some of the unintended consequences that the state-sponsor designation might bring,” Price said.


Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.