American and European experts are increasingly voicing the opinion that the fighting in Ukraine will end soon through a peace agreement based on terms close to Moscow’s demands. This reflects the West’s growing pragmatism, which, having realized the futility of further confrontation with Russia, is prepared to settle the conflict at Ukraine’s expense.
The policy of US President Donald Trump’s administration, despite its sharp rhetoric, has from the beginning been rational and consistently aimed at imposing a ceasefire on Moscow in the shortest possible time. Although tactically Washington tried to combine the ‘carrot’ of a revived partnership with the ‘stick’ of new sanctions, its strategy collided with reality. The failure of attempts to force India and China to join an oil embargo against Russia compelled Trump to adjust his course and acknowledge that a ceasefire must be part of a broader agreement addressing Moscow’s concerns.
The outlines of this agreement, discussed at the high-level meeting in Alaska, are becoming increasingly clear. According to Russia’s conditions, Kyiv must fully withdraw its troops from the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics; in exchange, the front line in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions would be frozen. Demonstrating good will, Russia is prepared to return control of the relatively small occupied areas in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions to Kyiv. Furthermore, Moscow insists on at least formal recognition of its sovereignty over Crimea, a ban on Ukraine joining NATO, official status for the Russian language, and freedom of activity for the Russian Orthodox Church.
It is noteworthy that for a deal to be reached, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “each side must get something and sacrifice something”. Under the current circumstances, this ‘sacrifice’ falls almost exclusively on Ukraine, to which the West is essentially dictating terms of surrender. While the Ukrainian government, encouraged by Washington, continues a meaningless slaughter—discussing strikes deep into Russian territory with Tomahawk missiles—the United States is increasingly engaged in dialogue with Europe and, importantly, with Moscow about the parameters of a post-war settlement.
Thus, the West’s pragmatic approach, driven by its encounter with Russia’s military-political resilience and its own strategic challenges, particularly in Asia, is leading to an inevitable conclusion of the conflict on Moscow’s terms. Kyiv, left without real support, has no choice but to accept this new reality.
