Fragile Hope: Inside the New Push to End the War in Ukraine
By Mike Bailey
Senior World Correspondent, Wide World News
February 23, 2026
Four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion, the war in Ukraine may be closer to a negotiated end than at any point since 2022—but the pathway remains narrow, fragile and deeply political. A series of quiet but intense talks involving Ukrainian, Russian and U.S. officials has opened a diplomatic channel that Kyiv’s leadership now describes as “constructive,” even as fighting continues on multiple fronts. For war-weary Ukrainians and anxious European allies, the prospect of progress is both a source of cautious optimism and a reminder of how much could still go wrong.
Recent rounds of talks in Abu Dhabi and Geneva have focused on a broad peace framework that reportedly covers around 20 core issues, from security guarantees and ceasefire arrangements to reconstruction and prisoner exchanges. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signalled that negotiations have reached a “new milestone,” suggesting the war could, in an optimistic scenario, end in the first half of 2026. His comments reflect a subtle but important shift: after years of insisting on military victory as the only acceptable outcome, Kyiv is now more openly talking about the architecture of a sustainable peace.
At the heart of the emerging framework is the role of the United States. The Trump administration has been closely involved in crafting and revising proposals with both Kyiv and Moscow, and officials in Washington are exploring how the U.S. might monitor and guarantee any eventual deal. This could range from overseeing ceasefire lines to coordinating an international presence that blends U.S. backing with a European lead on the ground. For Washington, the stakes go beyond Ukraine: the credibility of U.S. security commitments in Europe and the future of NATO’s deterrence posture are very much in play.
But the road to peace is cluttered with unresolved questions. Ukraine insists that any agreement must preserve its sovereignty, ensure meaningful security guarantees, and avoid locking in territorial losses as the price of ending hostilities. Russia, for its part, is likely to demand recognition of its control over some occupied areas, relief from sanctions and constraints on Ukraine’s future military posture. Reconciling these positions will require not just diplomatic creativity but also domestic political capital that leaders in both countries may struggle to mobilize.
Timing is another critical factor. Ukrainian officials have hinted that a fresh round of talks could take place as early as the end of this week, underscoring the urgency of the present window. Yet the same urgency creates pressure to move quickly on issues that typically take months or years to resolve. Questions about sequencing—what comes first: ceasefire, withdrawal, or guarantees?—could easily derail progress if the parties reach for maximalist positions. The longer negotiations drag on, the greater the risk that battlefield developments or domestic political shifts could upend the process altogether.
European governments are watching closely, aware that any peace deal will deeply affect the continent’s security architecture and budget priorities. The European Union has spent years mobilising financial and military aid for Kyiv, while also absorbing millions of Ukrainian refugees and coping with energy disruptions. A durable peace would allow Europe to pivot from crisis management to long-term reconstruction, but many European leaders fear being presented with a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it arrangement largely shaped by Washington and Moscow. Balancing the need for unity with domestic sensitivities will not be easy.
For ordinary Ukrainians, the debate is more visceral. Millions have endured blackouts, displacement and the constant threat of missile strikes, with humanitarian agencies reporting persistent challenges in providing heating, electricity and basic services, especially during winter. Any peace that appears to validate aggression or reward war crimes will be politically toxic in a society that has paid such a high price for resistance. At the same time, the desire for an end to the violence is widespread, particularly among those on or near the front lines.
The coming weeks could prove decisive. Negotiators must turn a broad conceptual framework into concrete steps that militaries and civilians on the ground can understand and implement. They must also navigate domestic audiences primed for disappointment, and partners who fear being left out of the room where decisions are made. For now, Ukraine’s leaders are projecting cautious confidence that diplomacy is finally catching up with the grim realities of the battlefield. Whether that translates into a genuine end to Europe’s largest war in decades will depend on choices taken in closed rooms—and on events far beyond any negotiator’s control.
Leave a Reply