PILPG Roundtable Blog:
Creating the Conditions for Peace in 2026 -
Expert Perspectives on Ukraine’s Strategic Position and Negotiations
Editor’s Note
More than four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, the debate over Ukraine’s path to a just and durable peace has entered a new phase. Recent developments on the battlefield, renewed diplomatic contacts, and shifts in international support have prompted fresh discussion about Ukraine’s strategic position and the conditions under which negotiations could contribute to a lasting settlement.
To continue this conversation, PILPG invited members of its Ukraine Peace Negotiations Working Group, former senior diplomats, ambassadors, international prosecutors, and leading experts in international law, peace negotiations, and security to share their views on three questions:
How should Ukraine’s current strategic position be assessed?
When, if at all, should negotiations become a priority?
And what should Ukraine’s international partners do now to maximize the prospects for a just and durable peace?
While the experts approached these questions from different professional backgrounds, several points of agreement stood out. They broadly agreed that Ukraine’s position is stronger than battlefield maps alone suggest, that negotiations should not come at the expense of continued support, and that lasting peace will require careful preparation long before any final agreement is reached.
Ukraine’s Strategic Position: Stronger Than It May Appear
The experts broadly agreed that Ukraine’s strategic position should not be assessed solely by developments along the front line. Instead, they pointed to Russia’s failure to achieve its strategic objectives, Ukraine’s growing military capabilities, and the continued resilience of both the Ukrainian state and its international partnerships.
Dr. Paul R. Williams, President of the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), Rebecca Grazier Professor of Law and International Relations at American University, argued that battlefield developments tell only part of the story:
“Ukraine’s strategic position remains difficult, but it should not be assessed solely by changes along the front line. Ukraine has denied Russia its central political objective: the destruction of a sovereign, democratic, and European-oriented Ukrainian state. It has demonstrated extraordinary military adaptability, institutional resilience, and an increasing capacity to impose costs on Russia.”
Dr. Williams added that Ukraine’s long-term prospects will depend on sustained international military and financial support, continued development of its defense-industrial base, credible anti-corruption reforms, and convincing Moscow that it cannot outlast either Ukraine or the coalition supporting it.
Former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and Head of the UN Mission in Kosovo Ambassador Joachim Rücker reached a similar conclusion, arguing that Ukraine’s position is improving militarily, politically, and diplomatically:
“Ukraine’s position is improving on the battlefield, in its ability to strike Russian military infrastructure, in domestic morale, and in growing international recognition that it is defending Europe as much as itself. If this momentum continues, there will come a point when the costs for Russia become grossly disproportionate to any perceived benefits.”
Ambassador Rücker suggested that, combined with credible security guarantees, this could eventually create conditions for the unconditional ceasefire already proposed by Ukraine.
Several experts also highlighted Ukraine’s increasingly successful long-range strike campaign as one of the most significant developments of the past year.
Major General (Ret.) Darrell Guthrie noted that Ukraine’s intermediate- and long-range drone operations are having a growing impact on Russian logistics, particularly in Crimea and against Russia’s oil refining sector. Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Guthrie argued that these strikes have begun to bring the reality of the war to ordinary Russian citizens while demonstrating Ukraine’s ability to project force deep inside Russian territory.
Former diplomat of the Republic of Kosovo Ambassador Ylber Hysa similarly argued that Ukraine’s expanding deep-strike capabilities have disrupted Russian supply lines, degraded energy infrastructure, and increased the costs of sustaining the war. Looking ahead, Ambassador Hysa identified the expansion of Ukraine’s domestic defense industry, continued long-range strike capabilities, and predictable Western support as key factors likely to shape the course of the war.
Dr. David Crane, Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone and Founder of the Global Accountability Project, placed these developments in a broader strategic context:
“The war has evolved into a contest of industrial output, political endurance, and coalition cohesion rather than maneuver warfare alone.”
Dr. Crane argued that Ukraine’s innovation in drones, electronic warfare, and long-range strike systems has begun to offset Russia’s numerical advantages, while Russia’s own strategy increasingly depends on outlasting Western political resolve. Ukraine’s path to a favorable outcome, he concluded, lies not in rapid territorial gains but in sustained resilience, industrial mobilization, and steadily increasing the costs of Russian aggression.
Negotiations Should Support, Not Replace, Ukraine’s Leverage
Although the experts differed on when negotiations might become productive, they agreed that diplomacy should not come at the expense of continued military, political, and economic support. Rather than viewing negotiations as an alternative to strengthening Ukraine’s position, they emphasized that the two should proceed in parallel.
Ambassador Rücker argued that diplomatic engagement should continue throughout the war:
“There should always be contacts, mediated or directly. I would favor a permanent two-track approach - military and diplomatic. An unconditional ceasefire is achievable when the time is right, and the remaining issues, including the future of the occupied territories, can then be negotiated.”
Ambassador Rücker further suggested that Ukraine and its partners should make greater use of the UN Security Council by drafting and circulating resolutions, both to prepare the framework for a future settlement and to reinforce the rules-based international order.
Dr. Williams likewise advocated a two-track approach, stressing that preparations for negotiations should begin now but should never weaken Ukraine’s leverage:
“Diplomatic engagement and preparation for negotiations should already be underway as part of a two-track strategy, but formal negotiations should not displace the military, economic, and diplomatic measures required to create meaningful leverage.”
Dr. Williams argued that any future negotiations must remain Ukraine-led and should include meaningful participation by Ukrainian civil society and women. He emphasized that any agreement should provide for an enforceable ceasefire, credible security guarantees, legally binding obligations, and clear consequences for violations. At the same time, he cautioned that negotiations should not legitimize Russia’s attempted annexations or come at the expense of accountability, reparations, or other elements of transitional justice.
Chris Goebel, Strategic & Senior Legal Advisor at PILPG, similarly argued that negotiations should remain part of ongoing diplomatic engagement, but become a strategic priority only when there is a realistic prospect of achieving a durable settlement:
“The critical question is not whether talks occur (and they almost certainly will), but whether the circumstances are conducive to meaningful progress.”
He cautioned against allowing elections, summit diplomacy, or changes of government to create artificial momentum for negotiations. Instead, partners should maintain a consistent legal position throughout the war, making clear that flexibility over sequencing or interim arrangements does not imply flexibility regarding the principles of the UN Charter or the prohibition on acquiring territory by force.
Ambassador Hysa likewise argued that negotiations should become an operational priority only once Ukraine has established sufficient leverage to alter Russia’s strategic calculations. In his view, diplomatic initiatives will remain limited so long as Moscow continues to pursue maximalist objectives. Building Ukraine’s defense-industrial capacity, strengthening multilateral security arrangements, and maintaining pressure on Russia, he argued, are essential to ensuring that any future negotiations take place from a position of strength rather than necessity.
Building the Foundations for a Durable Peace
While military support remains essential, the experts emphasized that lasting peace will depend on much more than a ceasefire. They highlighted the importance of strong institutions, long-term security arrangements, accountability, and Ukraine’s continued integration into the European community.
Dr. Williams argued that Ukraine’s partners should already be preparing the architecture of a future peace process. He called on the European Union to take a leading role in developing a framework for future negotiations, including work on ceasefire monitoring, security guarantees, sanctions snapback mechanisms, accountability, reconstruction, and dispute resolution. Europe, Dr. Williams argued, cannot afford to wait until negotiations become imminent before deciding how they should be structured.
Chris Goebel similarly stressed that coalition cohesion will be critical before and during any future negotiations. Mixed public messaging or competing diplomatic initiatives, he warned, risk encouraging Russia to exploit differences among Ukraine’s partners rather than engage seriously in negotiations. Quiet coordination among allies, he argued, is therefore just as important as public demonstrations of unity. He also cautioned against treating accountability as a bargaining chip. Accountability should not be viewed simply as a post-conflict objective, but as one of the foundations that gives any eventual settlement legitimacy and helps ensure its implementation.
Former Head of the Permanent Mission of Montenegro to the World Trade Organization and Special Representative of Montenegro to the UN Human Rights Council Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević argued that security guarantees alone will not secure a durable peace. In her view, Ukraine’s European Union accession process should be understood as the central long-term peace project. Ambassador Marić-Djordjević emphasized that continued investment in reconstruction, governance reforms, anti-corruption efforts, and institutional capacity will not only strengthen Ukraine’s resilience but also reinforce the foundations for successful EU membership. Framing Ukraine’s future primarily through European integration, supported by credible security guarantees, offers the strongest basis for a just, durable, and sustainable peace.
Conclusion
The contributions collected here suggest that creating the conditions for peace is not a single diplomatic initiative or a future negotiation. It is a continuous process that spans the battlefield, the negotiating table, international institutions, and Ukraine’s long-term integration into Europe. The prospects for a durable settlement will depend on both what happens during negotiations, and on whether those broader conditions continue to develop in the months and years ahead.