With the United States adopting a more coercive stance toward Moscow—imposing new sanctions, setting deadlines for a ceasefire, and visibly positioning nuclear submarines—now is the time to consider what a durable peace in Ukraine would require. Coercion may prompt an initial movement toward negotiations, but it cannot, on its own, deliver a durable peace. That will require a strategic approach grounded not in idealism, but in the hard lessons of history—one that builds a credible balance of power and takes seriously Russia’s own sense of justice, however unsettling that may be to many in the West.
The reasons to pursue such a peace are clear: Russia has little hope of reaching Kyiv, and Ukraine has no viable military path to retake Donbas or Crimea. Yet the war drags on as the human and material costs keep mounting. Europe may now be paying for a greater amount of Ukraine’s defense, but the United States continues to send weapons, ammunition, and funds that could arguably be better used elsewhere. Moreover, each day of combat increases the risk of another errant Russian missile landing on NATO territory, potentially triggering direct U.S. involvement.
The terms of any peace in Ukraine must therefore be lasting. As with much in foreign policy, Henry Kissinger is instructive in crafting such a peace. In his 1994 book Diplomacy, he offered a two-part test for lasting peace. First, is the peace just—does a state have reason to disturb it? Second, does it create a balance of power that can check an aggrieved state?
Any Ukraine peace plan must address these not-so-simple tests. It must appear just to both sides and establish a balance of power sufficient to deter future Russian aggression. Without these conditions, any peace would merely be an interlude between wars.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member