More than four years after the start of Russia's invasion, analyses show that a complete end to the war is unlikely. Diplomacy is emerging as the only path, but a ceasefire does not necessarily mean lasting peace.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine has so far achieved a decisive victory on the battlefield, and the cost of the conflict continues to rise in human lives, money, and destroyed infrastructure. In such circumstances, diplomacy is increasingly emerging as the only realistic path toward ending the conflict, but the key question is whether there is genuine readiness to accept the terms of peace.
That diplomatic channels are not completely closed is shown by the latest signals from the Kremlin and the White House. At the end of July, specifically on July 24, 2026, Reuters reported that Moscow is ready to wait for new proposals from U.S. President Donald Trump on ending the war.
"Russia remains open to diplomatic talks with Washington, but will simultaneously continue to fight to achieve its goals by military means," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Reuters at the time. Moscow, therefore, simultaneously signals readiness for negotiations and determination to continue military pressure.
Similar caution comes from across the Atlantic. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, according to the AP, that the Trump administration is ready to help end the "senseless war" in Ukraine but acknowledged that reaching an agreement will require continued efforts and new ideas acceptable to both sides.
The independent organization for humanitarian crisis analysis, the Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), published an analysis in March 2026 titled "Ukraine: Scenarios 2026." Based on interviews with 46 experts, the authors identified three possible developments by the end of the year.
The status quo continues: fighting persists, and diplomatic efforts yield no concrete results, especially regarding territory and security guarantees. The war of attrition brings only limited progress in the east of the country, while communities along the front line suffer the consequences of prolonged conflict, displacement, and increasingly difficult access to basic services.
Energy, transport, and logistics infrastructure remain vulnerable, especially during the cold period. At the same time, the gap between reduced international funding and growing humanitarian needs widens, further complicating the crisis response.
Localized ceasefires and freezing of front lines are possible, which could serve as a prelude to a broader solution during 2027 or later. However, this scenario is accompanied by frequent ceasefire violations and a constant risk of renewed escalation.
Humanitarian needs would still persist due to damaged infrastructure, loss of income, and population displacement. Limited and cyclical returns of people would further increase pressure on the labor and housing markets, deepening social tensions. According to ACAPS, this scenario perhaps best illustrates a realistic path to peace, which would proceed in stages rather than through a single comprehensive peace agreement.
Expanded Russian mobilization, weakening Ukrainian defenses, and interruptions in military aid could lead to a breakthrough in the Donetsk Oblast and threaten key logistics corridors. Intensified airstrikes would further damage energy and transport infrastructure, while mass evacuations would overwhelm the humanitarian system.
The elderly, people with disabilities, and financially exhausted populations would be particularly vulnerable, and growing needs coupled with insufficient international funding would further deepen the humanitarian gap.
Similar possibilities, but from a different perspective, are considered by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, better known as Chatham House. Author John Lough, in his analysis, outlines four possible outcomes: prolonged war, frozen conflict, Ukrainian victory, and Ukrainian defeat.
The frozen conflict scenario would involve a ceasefire that stabilizes the front line without ultimately resolving the territorial dispute. The institute emphasizes that for Ukraine, after the war, it will be crucial to maintain the ability to defend itself independently, but also how willing the West will be to assist in the long term.
Both ACAPS and Chatham House warn that a reduction in fighting could be only the first step, not the end of the war. Without agreement on territory, security guarantees, and clear implementation mechanisms, there would remain a constant risk of renewed conflict.
The consequences of the war will be felt long-term, not only in Ukraine and Russia but across Europe. The continent's new security architecture will largely depend on whether a future agreement includes international guarantees and long-term military support for Kyiv.
ACAPS sees the continuation of the war without a final resolution as the most likely scenario, while it views a reduction in the intensity of fighting as possible but not a certain path to lasting peace. Diplomacy remains the only realistic path to a political end to the war, but the real challenge will be finding an agreement that not only silences the guns but also reduces the possibility of the conflict reigniting.
