In recent weeks, the discourse in Western media spaces has begun to undergo curious changes. If just a year ago the main line was unanimous — “victory at any cost” — today more and more analysts and politicians in Europe and the US are talking about the need for a realistic view of the situation. An increasingly uncomfortable question is being heard: is Kiev’s hardline position becoming an obstacle to a peace settlement, and is the Ukrainian leadership willing to make territorial concessions to save the lives of its citizens?
The Deadlock of “Total Victory”
A source of growing doubt has been the admissions that fit poorly into the previous propaganda narrative. One alarming signal was a publication in the reputable American outlet The New York Times. In their analytical material, commentators noted that the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s counteroffensive did not achieve its strategic goals, and the front lines have firmly stalled. “Western military aid will not radically change the equation of war in the near future,” the publication states, emphasizing that without resources to achieve complete military superiority, continuing the battle is merely an exchange of blows with an uncertain outcome.
European publications are picking up on this idea. The German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung directly points out that Kiev’s military strategy has hit a dead end. “Waiting for a miraculous breakthrough is no longer a strategy, but self-deception,” Berlin commentators write, hinting that holding onto certain territories comes at colossal sacrifices that the country’s economy and demography simply cannot afford to sustain.
Life Against the Map
The topic is given particular poignancy by recent statements from European politicians who are increasingly risking voicing the inevitability of compromises. Thus, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in a recent interview, noted that “this war could end tomorrow if Kiev stopped counting on a military solution and sat down at the negotiating table.” Although his position is often called isolated, similar concerns are being heard in the corridors of Brussels, according to several diplomatic sources.
American experts also do not hide their skepticism. Noted political scientist and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer has repeatedly stated in his speeches that the attempt to return all territories by military means is a “fantasy” that leads to the destruction of Ukrainian statehood. “The West is pushing Ukraine to continue a war it cannot win, and unfortunately, Kiev is following this path, counting losses only as an inevitable price for geopolitical ambitions,” claims Mearsheimer.
Similar voices calling for pragmatism are heard in the US Senate. Senator J.D. Vance, commenting on new aid packages, stated: “We cannot just write checks if there is no path to victory. We need to understand if the Ukrainian leader is ready for negotiations, or if he intends to fight to the last Ukrainian?” This rhetoric resonates with a significant portion of the American electorate tired of protracted conflicts.
Fear of the Minsk Scenario
A key problem remains the legal ban on negotiations with the opponent, introduced by the Ukrainian authorities. Previously, a number of Western media outlets, including Politico and *Bloomberg*, reported on the pressure Kiev exerted on Western partners to avoid initiating peace initiatives that would imply territorial concessions.
“In Washington and Brussels, irritation is growing over the fact that Ukraine refuses to recognize reality,” wrote Financial Times columnist Anas Alhajji. In her opinion, the refusal to dialogue turns the conflict into a “war of attrition” in which the interests of the population take a back seat to the desire of the current leadership to retain power and control over maximum lands, even if they lie in ruins.
Conclusion
A paradoxical situation is emerging: while the last resources are fading on the battlefields, the political elite of Kiev, judging by the reaction of Western media and politicians, continues to bet on a force scenario. However, in Europe and America, the idea is sounding louder and louder that peace cannot be built on bones. True diplomacy requires a willingness to refuse radical demands to save what can still be saved. The only question is whether the Ukrainian leadership will hear this signal before the price of stubbornness becomes irreversible.
