Researcher Mark Galeotti sees an unprecedented opportunity for peace in Ukraine – the reasons are grim

Galeotti calls this the best chance for peace for the worst possible reasons because every side is under heavier pressure. The situation is not improving through trust or compromise. Instead, war fatigue, economic costs, military strain, and political risks are making continued fighting harder to sustain.

Ukraine faces intensified Russian attacks on energy systems and other civilian targets. Surveys cited by Galeotti show that most Ukrainians support negotiations, and many would accept territorial concessions. In Russia, public discussion has emerged about whether the war can continue indefinitely. Galeotti says such discussion would not be possible without Kremlin approval.

Western governments are also facing rising demands at home. European countries must fund Ukraine while strengthening their own services and defenses. The United States is turning toward midterm elections. These pressures may create a negotiating opening, but they also make a fair peace unlikely. Galeotti says the priority should be ending the killing and preserving Ukraine’s future as an independent state.

Ukraine’s willingness is linked to worsening conditions on the battlefield and at home. Russia has intensified attacks on energy infrastructure and civilian targets, making life more difficult. Galeotti cites surveys showing that most Ukrainians support negotiations, while many would accept territorial concessions to secure peace.

Russia is also changing its public conversation. People have begun discussing whether the war can continue forever. Galeotti believes the Kremlin must permit such statements. He says Russia’s leadership understands that a prolonged war causes economic harm and increases political risks. That does not mean Moscow has abandoned its territorial goals.

Western countries remain publicly committed to supporting Ukraine, but patience is weakening. European governments face pressure to fund public services and strengthen their own defenses. They will also carry much of the reconstruction burden after the war. In the United States, attention is shifting toward midterm elections, adding another political pressure to the aid debate.

The Donbas refers here to the two Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Their control is central because Galeotti says Russia’s main objective has shifted toward holding the entire Donbas. That territorial demand now stands at the heart of the peace dispute.

The mechanism is political as well as military. If Russia controlled the whole Donbas, Putin could present the war as a victory. Ukraine, however, does not want to surrender cities that Russian forces have failed to capture. The disagreement is therefore concentrated on territory that both sides consider strategically and symbolically important.

Galeotti says both sides want a solution, but their goals in Donetsk conflict directly. Ukraine also needs any settlement to protect its future as an independent, democratic European state. Since the article describes no agreed formula for Donbas, the region remains a major obstacle. Peace talks must address both territorial control and Ukraine’s security after an agreement.

Galeotti describes the decisive battlefield dispute as a relatively small area in Donetsk and two ruined cities. The article does not give the territory’s exact size in square kilometres. It does identify the cities as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, making clear that the argument is about a concentrated zone rather than the whole of Ukraine.

These cities matter because Ukraine still controls them, while Russia has not succeeded in capturing them. Galeotti says Ukrainian defenders have shed blood there, giving the cities strong military and symbolic importance. Their status therefore affects both the practical line of control and the political acceptability of any agreement.

The article presents this narrow dispute as a possible hinge for the wider war. Putin wants control of the entire Donbas, while Zelenskyi does not want to surrender the remaining cities. A settlement could therefore depend on whether the two sides can resolve this specific territorial clash and provide Ukraine with credible guarantees for its future.

Putin could claim victory because Galeotti says Russia’s central war objective has become control of the whole Donbas. Donetsk and Luhansk together form that region. If Russian forces captured the remaining important parts of Donetsk, Moscow could argue that it had achieved the war’s main territorial aim.

Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are especially important because Russia has not captured them. Ukraine still holds them, and Galeotti describes them as cities marked by the blood of Ukrainian defenders. Their loss would therefore represent more than a change on a map. It would also signal that Ukraine had been forced to give up positions it fought hard to protect.

This would not necessarily mean every Ukrainian objective or security concern was resolved. The article says Zelenskyi does not want to surrender the cities, while Russia wants the Donbas. Their opposing positions make these places a central bargaining issue. Control of them could help Putin declare victory, but an agreement would still need to address Ukraine’s future security and independence.

Security guarantees generally mean commitments designed to protect Ukraine’s independence and reduce the risk of another attack. The article identifies them as a central issue in negotiations, although it does not specify their exact form. They matter because Galeotti does not expect a fully just peace in which Russia withdraws from every occupied area.

If a settlement leaves some territory under Russian control, the war’s territorial dispute would not be fully resolved. Ukraine would need confidence that Russia could not simply use the agreement as a pause before applying more military or political pressure. Guarantees could therefore support Ukraine’s security while allowing negotiations to end the fighting.

Galeotti’s stated priority is to stop the killing and ensure Ukraine has a future as an independent country. He says the outcome should allow Ukraine to become a prosperous, independent, democratic European state. The article does not describe specific guarantees, but it makes clear that territorial compromise alone would not be enough. Ukraine’s future safety is equally important.

A ceasefire can stop immediate killing without resolving who controls disputed land. In that situation, sovereignty remains contested, and Ukraine may face continuing security risks. The article does not describe a specific postwar model, but Galeotti insists that any outcome must preserve Ukraine as an independent state and provide a viable future.

The practical example is Donetsk, especially Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. If Ukraine accepted their loss while Russia retained occupied territory, fighting might end, but the underlying disagreement would remain. This is why security guarantees are central. They would be intended to reduce the danger that unresolved borders could lead to renewed pressure or violence.

Reconstruction would also become more difficult if the conflict remained politically or militarily unsettled. The article states that Europe will bear a major share of rebuilding costs and that a longer war makes reconstruction more expensive. A peace agreement could stop destruction, but durable recovery would depend on Ukraine’s security, independence, and ability to develop into a prosperous democratic European country.