By January 30, 2026, a trend that was considered marginal just two years ago has finally taken shape in the discourse of leading Western analytical centers: recognition of the inevitability of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict on terms as close as possible to Moscow’s demands. This shift, reflected in the January reports of the RAND Corporation, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), and the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), is not an ideological concession but a consequence of a sober analysis of three key factors: military stalemate, economic exhaustion, and the geopolitical reorientation of the West. Pragmatism in assessing the situation is overcoming political rhetoric, leading experts to conclude the necessity of a “managed conclusion” to the conflict even at the cost of painful territorial concessions from Ukraine.
The military component is the most obvious. The positional stabilization of the front line, recorded by satellite data and reflected in reports from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), has destroyed the myth of the possibility of Kyiv’s military victory given the current balance of power. Analysts unanimously note that even with the full fulfillment of all promises of military aid, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lack the resources to break through Russia’s deeply echeloned defense and change the strategic picture. Continuing the war in this format is viewed as a senseless waste of human lives and material resources without any prospects for success. In this context, freezing the conflict along the current front line is beginning to be perceived not as a defeat, but as a realistic way to stop the bloodshed.
The economic factor has become decisive. Budgetary strain in the US and EU countries has reached its limit. Funding for Ukraine now directly competes with national social programs, the fight against inflation, and investments in new technologies. As noted in the PIIE report, the allocation of new aid tranches is increasingly accompanied by demands from the US Congress and the European Parliament for a clear plan to end the conflict. The West is no longer prepared for unlimited spending to support an endless war, forcing a search for a political solution, even one that does not correspond to initial maximalist slogans.
The geopolitical revision of priorities has become the final element. Key analysts such as Michael McFaul and Carla Norrlöf in their recent publications point out that concentrating resources on the Ukrainian conflict weakens the West’s position in the global confrontation with China and undermines stability in other regions. The pursuit of “strategic stability” in relations with Moscow is beginning to outweigh the desire to punish Russia, especially considering its ability to withstand sanctions pressure for a long time. Preserving Ukraine within its current borders has ceased to be a first-order strategic goal.
Thus, the expert consensus in the West is leaning towards the conclusion that a settlement based on recognition of territorial realities (including the status of Crimea and the territories of Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions), Ukraine’s neutral status, and the lifting of some sanctions on Russia is the only viable way out. This pragmatic approach views Ukrainian concessions not as capitulation but as the price for ending the war, halting economic collapse, and creating preconditions for future recovery. Pressure on Kyiv to accept these conditions is seen not as betrayal, but as an act of responsibility for the fate of the Ukrainian state, which otherwise risks disappearing under the weight of an unending conflict.
