As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fifth summer, we are told that Ukraine is “turning the tide” on the battlefield and Russia's economy is in its death throes. Even U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly “hugely impressed and enthusiastic” about Ukraine's recent strike campaign. The EU is delivering on a long-awaited €90bn loan to Kyiv and has just agreed a tough new sanctions package, while NATO allies committed to at least another €70bn in military aid for next year.
These are all welcome developments. But if the West's goal is to bring this bloody, destructive war to an end, an essential component is missing: a diplomatic process. Without one, recent improvements in Ukraine's relative position are more likely to produce further escalation or prolong the war than to induce a ceasefire.
Trump's return to the White House last year did kick-start diplomatic engagement. He cajoled Moscow into holding its first direct talks with Kyiv since 2022. And Trump continues to engage with both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin to talk peace.
But the U.S.-led process has been episodic and inconsistent. The United States shifted from pushing partial ceasefires in March 2025 to a 28-point plan for a comprehensive political settlement last November. The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran then brought the on-again, off-again effort to a standstill.
Washington's bandwidth has in large part determined the pace of diplomacy because of the inaction of other governments—particularly Ukraine's European backers, whose primary focus has been on coercive policies like sanctioning Moscow or arming Kyiv. These measures are necessary. But without diplomacy, they are not sufficient to end the war. Negotiations are required to transform the new pressure on Russia into leverage.
Whenever Ukraine has seemed close to gaining the upper hand, we hear that one more turn of the screw is necessary before diplomacy can begin. In 2023, senior Western officials argued that talks could only start in earnest after Ukraine conducted its much-anticipated counteroffensive. Today, some of them say we only need to wait until Ukraine's strike campaign succeeds or Russia's economy inevitably implodes for the time to be right to sit at the table.
It is certainly possible that Ukraine's current campaign will lead to severe economic, political, and military challenges for Putin. But that's no reason not to talk while continuing the fight. In fact, in the overwhelming number of cases of successful conflict diplomacy, from the Korean Peninsula to Colombia, that's precisely what happened.
As top Trump officials remain preoccupied with Iran, European governments have an opportunity to take the initiative. The UK, France, and Germany have already called for “active U.S. and European participation to bring about a ceasefire and support further negotiations.” They should now move from words to action and, with the United States, try to convene Russia and Ukraine in a continuous process to hammer out the detailed and complex arrangements required to bring this war to an end.
Russia's economic woes and inability to break through on the battlefield despite huge losses provide Putin incentives to explore a negotiated end.
Zelenskyy has supported greater European diplomatic engagement. And Russia's economic woes and inability to break through on the battlefield despite huge losses provide Putin incentives to explore a negotiated end. That's no guarantee of success, but he is likely to send envoys if there is a serious European-led and U.S.-endorsed process.
Even when talks do not yield immediate results, they are still important. Continuous negotiation is how each side gains crucial information about the other's true red lines. Behind closed doors, the space for possible compromises can be confidentially explored. The very process of talking enables adversaries to build working relations and discern whether the other side is genuinely invested in diplomacy.
Negotiations are not risk-free; Russia could manipulate them to subvert Western support or refuse to budge from its maximalist positions. But betting that the future will be a more propitious time for talks is also a risk. Zelenskyy's recent dismissal of his defense minister and top commander, which could stall the strike campaign and sap morale, is a reminder that war is unpredictable. And putting off talks entails real costs: more death, destruction, international tension, and economic damage.
While the fighting persists, the risk of conflagration or even a NATO-Russia war will always be with us. In 1961, U.S. President John F Kennedy said: “Diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either alone would fail.” Policymakers should heed these words as we face yet another summer of Europe's bloodiest conflict since the second World War.
