The war in Ukraine has reached 1000 days since it began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and escalated dramatically with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February of 2022. This has been the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, and it has devastated Ukraine. The conflict has led to the death of thousands and the displacement of over six million people. Instead of de-escalating over the years, the war has only worsened with time. 

Currently, Kyiv endures relentless missile and drone strikes. The United States recently approved long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) weapons for Ukraine, with the UK expecting to follow suit by providing Storm Shadow missiles to Kyiv. These tools aim to allow Ukraine to target Russian barracks, fuel depots, and logistics hubs deep within Russia, countering Moscow’s capacity to strike Ukraine. Divisions persist among countries in the EU. Though Germany is backing the US in this war, Berlin is nevertheless unwilling to supply Taurus missiles. 

The conflict has also seen North Korean involvement, as Pyongyang reportedly sent troops in support of Russia. Clearly, this further complicates the geopolitical landscape. Despite these challenges, entities like NATO and the EU remain key to the global push for Ukraine’s sovereignty, which illustrates the war’s profound stakes and the complexities involved in forging peace. 

The international response to the war in Ukraine has been marked by significant support for Ukraine’s resistance. Military assistance, such as the provision of long-range ATACMS weapons and Storm Shadow missiles, have been praised by some Ukrainian officials as potential game-changers. However, it is important to think critically. While these measures aim to shorten the war by enabling Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, they risk further escalation with Russia. Already, the war has accrued  a devastating human death toll, and the situation will continue to have no clear resolution if both states continue to escalate their attacks. Most recently, both countries experienced a record number of drone attacks, which underscores how militarised responses have failed to bring an end to the conflict. 

Negotiations have mostly failed so far. The Kremlin recently dismissed a Turkish peace proposal at the G20 summit in Brazil. This rejection highlights the stubborn nature of the conflict, with neither side willing to compromise. Escalation, rather than negotiation, has clearly become the norm and creates a cycle of retaliatory violence that has only deepened the crisis. Additionally, North Korea’s alleged deployment of over 10,000 soldiers to assist Russia, and the potential exchange of military and nuclear technology between Moscow and Pyongyang, only adds fuel to the fire.  

Military solutions have overlooked the mounting civilian toll, the refugee crisis, and the possibility of Russia deploying nuclear weapons. While Western nations aim to support Ukraine’s sovereignty, their actions inadvertently prolong the conflict, and increasing the risk of global destabilisation. Without a shift towards genuine diplomacy, the conflict’s trajectory appears set for more violence, deeper entrenchment, and long-lasting geopolitical repercussions.

To finally end the crisis in Ukraine, a radical approach is needed. This approach must prioritise neutrality, de-escalation, and inclusive economic recovery. Ukraine’s deep historical and cultural ties to Russia make it central to Moscow’s worldview, while its growing ties to NATO reflect aspirations for security and prosperity. This reality demands a strategy that does not force Ukraine to choose between East and West but rather allows it to serve as a neutral buffer state. 

It is important to note that neutrality and staying out of NATO does not mean subservience to Russia, but rather guarantees Kyiv’s sovereignty. This model would alleviate Moscow’s security concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion, which has been a driving factor behind its aggression. This means that Western nations must pivot from sanctions and militarisation to engaging with Russia diplomatically. This entails the preparation of a comprehensive rescue plan for Ukraine, funded by the EU, IMF (International Monetary Fund), US, and Russia.  A stable, economically prosperous Ukraine is in the interest of all parties, including Russia, as it would limit regional volatility and ensure a peaceful border.

This strategy also demands that Western nations cease all kinds of actions that provoke escalation, such as the provision of long-range missiles to Ukraine, which risks broadening the conflict. Instead, emphasis should be placed on multilateral peace talks under the supervision of neutral parties such as the United Nations. These negotiations should aim for a ceasefire, withdrawal of Russian troops, and a framework for regional stability.

This strategy acknowledges Russia’s legitimate security concerns without compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty. By fostering neutrality and economic cooperation, it offers a sustainable path to peace that avoids the devastation of prolonged war, and ensures stability for both Ukraine and the broader international community.