WASHINGTON -- As Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine approaches its fourth anniversary, the conflict is increasingly defined by hardened positions and structural constraints that leave little room for a negotiated breakthrough, former US diplomats and analysts said.
The main obstacle to progress in resolving Europe's largest land war since World War II is not a lack of diplomatic engagement but Moscow's unwillingness to reconsider its war aims, experts said.
Russia is "not negotiating in good faith" and has "no desire to end the war" under current conditions, said Kurt Volker, who served as US special representative for Ukraine during the first administration of Donald Trump.
"These negotiations are not going to go anywhere," Volker told RFE/RL in an interview.
In his view, meaningful talks on a cease-fire or political settlement would require a fundamental shift in the Kremlin's incentives, such as intensified international pressure or a reduced capacity to sustain military operations.
For Volker, the structure of talks is secondary to their substance. "The format doesn't matter; it's the content," he said, suggesting Washington could seek to alter Moscow's calculations through tools such as secondary sanctions or expanded weapons deliveries to Ukraine, steps he believes have not yet been fully employed.
James Gilmore, who served as US ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe under Trump, said the deep divide between Kyiv and Moscow reflects the war's underlying causes: Russia is seeking to retain territory it has seized -- and gain territory that Ukraine continues to hold -- while Ukraine is fighting for its survival as a sovereign state.
"In my view, the objectives of Russia and Ukraine are so diametrically opposed that it's not realistic to expect a breakthrough," Gilmore told RFE/RL.
He rejected suggestions Kyiv should cede territory as part of a peace arrangement, calling such concessions "not a good basis for ending the conflict" and reiterating that Russian aggression remains the central impediment to a durable settlement.
Both former officials said additional pressure should be directed at Moscow rather than Kyiv if conditions for serious diplomacy are to emerge. Volker described US policy tools as underutilized, while Gilmore said Russia has yet to face incentives strong enough to reconsider its goals.
Stalled Diplomacy
Recent US-brokered efforts have underscored the impasse. Talks held in Geneva this week failed to bridge differences over territory and security guarantees.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said military negotiators had agreed on potential mechanisms to monitor a cease-fire should political will materialize.
But core political disputes, particularly Russia's territorial demands, remain unresolved.
The main Russian negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, described the discussions as "difficult but businesslike." Zelenskyy, meanwhile, lashed out, suggesting that Medinsky -- a revisionist historian and former culture minister -- had inserted some sort of disputed interpretation of history into the talks.
The sides agreed only to continue talks, without announcing a date for the next round.
Meanwhile, continued Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure highlight the gap between diplomatic discussions and realities on the battlefield.
Structural Constraints
Beyond immediate political deadlock, some analysts point to longer-term structural factors shaping both the war and the prospects for peace.
George Beebe, a former CIA Russia specialist who is now the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, said Western pledges to support Ukraine for "as long as it takes" rest on assumptions that could erode over time. Ukraine's shrinking population and limited capacity to produce key weapons, including air-defense interceptors, constrain its ability to sustain a prolonged war without deeper Western commitments.
At the same time, Beebe noted, even if Russia consolidates control over occupied territory, it would still face a larger and more unified NATO alliance -- a strategic challenge that battlefield gains alone cannot resolve.
He suggested mounting costs on all sides could eventually create incentives for compromise. But any negotiations, he said, would likely be protracted and complex, requiring innovative security arrangements; for example, European-backed guarantees designed to protect Ukraine against future aggression without offering NATO membership.
Speaking this week at a forum hosted by the Quincy Institute, John Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago offered a more skeptical outlook.
Moscow's insistence on Ukrainian neutrality and limits on Kyiv's military capabilities reflects what the Kremlin views as an existential threat from NATO expansion, he said.
"Without Russia abandoning these core positions, meaningful negotiation remains illusory," Mearsheimer said.
Calculus In Moscow
Analysts broadly agree that the trajectory toward peace hinges on decisions taken in Moscow.
Unless Russia changes course or faces sharply increased costs, they say, diplomatic progress is likely to be confined to technical arrangements -- such as limited cease-fire mechanisms -- rather than the comprehensive political settlement needed to end a war whose human toll and strategic risks continue to grow.
A senior US administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity on February 20, disputed the notion that space for compromise is exhausted.
"While the challenges are clear, we remain committed to pursuing every possible avenue," the official said. "The effort to find common ground will continue, even if progress is slow and difficult."
