The Long Wait for an Impossible Peace
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the world has witnessed a conflict that has reshaped the face of global geopolitics.
Month after month, diplomatic efforts multiply — peace conferences, mediation attempts, proposals for ceasefires. Yet, more than three years on, a durable peace still seems out of reach.
Behind the apparent desire for compromise lies a deeper truth: the war in Ukraine is not merely a territorial conflict, but the battleground of two opposing worldviews.
While diplomats speak of negotiation, the reality on the ground shows that peace — in the traditional sense of a stable end to hostilities — remains an illusion until global power relations are redefined.
1. The Diplomatic Illusion: Peace or a Pause in the War?
1.1. The Diplomacy of Ceasefires
Since the war began, global powers have promoted various peace initiatives:
-
China’s twelve-point proposal;
-
Turkey’s mediation efforts;
-
Multilateral meetings in Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.
Yet none of these attempts has produced tangible results.
Each plan has failed for one fundamental reason: neither side believes the war is over.
For Kyiv, peace without the restoration of territorial integrity is unacceptable.
For Moscow, relinquishing annexed territories would mean strategic humiliation.
The language of diplomacy — “ceasefire,” “compromise,” “dialogue” — clashes with the logic of power.
The result is a deceptive peace, masking a prolonged, adaptive conflict.
1.2. Peace as Political Narrative
The word “peace” has become a powerful rhetorical tool — a means of influence rather than an objective reality.
Each international actor defines it differently, according to its own interests:
-
For the West, peace means the withdrawal of Russian troops;
-
For Russia, peace means the recognition of new borders;
-
For China and the Global South, peace often means stability, even if it comes through a frozen conflict.
“Peace” has thus become a polysemic term — more a narrative weapon than a diplomatic goal.
2. What’s at Stake: Global Power
2.1. Ukraine as the Epicenter of the Multipolar World
The war in Ukraine is both local and systemic.
Local, because it concerns the fate of a state caught between Europe and Eurasia.
Systemic, because it represents the testing ground for the emerging world order.
After the Cold War, the West — led by the United States — imagined a unipolar world.
The conflict in Ukraine has shattered that illusion, marking the return of great-power competition.
In this sense, Ukraine has become the symbolic center of a global contest between two visions:
-
The Western liberal order, based on sovereignty and international rules;
-
The Eurasian alternative, led by Russia and China, favoring spheres of influence and regional hegemony.
Ukraine, therefore, is not just a battlefield — it is a metaphor for a world in transition.
2.2. A Conflict of Systems and Survival
Analysts such as John Mearsheimer and Sergey Karaganov have noted that the war in Ukraine functions as a proxy conflict between major powers.
Beneath the artillery and drone strikes lies a broader struggle for:
-
control of energy routes,
-
technological supremacy,
-
and the authority to define global economic and security norms.
As long as these systemic disputes remain unresolved, no truce can be stable.
The war is no longer about territory alone — it is about the architecture of global power.
3. The Mirage of Compromise
3.1. Geopolitical Realism vs. Diplomatic Optimism
Classical theories of international relations — from Thucydides to Hans Morgenthau — teach that peace is not born of goodwill, but from balance of power.
That balance is absent today.
Both sides still believe they can improve their strategic position — militarily or politically.
In such a scenario, negotiation becomes an extension of war by other means, not its resolution.
Every temporary agreement is viewed as reversible, as a tactical pause rather than a genuine peace.
3.2. The Cold War Precedent
History offers examples of “suspended” conflicts — Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans.
Yet the war in Ukraine differs in one key aspect: it takes place in the heart of Europe, involving nuclear powers and directly impacting global security.
During the Cold War, peace rested on mutual deterrence and fear.
Today, that equilibrium has fractured. Technological acceleration, economic rivalry, and weakened institutions make a stable global balance far more elusive.
4. Europe Between Illusion and Powerlessness
4.1. The Continent’s Strategic Dilemma
Europe is both the region most affected by the conflict and the least capable of influencing its outcome.
The European Union has shown political unity but strategic dependence.
It relies on the United States for defense and on external actors for energy, despite speaking of “strategic autonomy.”
The European dream of becoming an independent geopolitical actor collides with the reality of structural weakness.
As in the 19th century, Europe risks becoming the stage of history rather than its author.
4.2. The Economic Price of War
Sanctions, energy shocks, and supply-chain disruptions have shown how the Ukraine war has redrawn the global economic map.
Russia has pivoted toward Asia; Europe has paid the price in inflation and competitiveness; the United States has benefited through gas exports and arms sales.
The war has accelerated a transition toward a fragmented global economy, where trade alliances double as political weapons.
Peace, in this context, is not merely a moral goal — it is a struggle for economic leverage.
5. The Asymmetry of War and the Logic of Time
5.1. An Adaptive, Hybrid Conflict
The war in Ukraine no longer follows the logic of classical warfare.
It has become a hybrid conflict, blending conventional combat with information warfare, cyber operations, and global diplomacy.
Every front is both military and mediatic; every tactical victory becomes part of a larger political narrative.
Time itself has become a weapon.
Each side believes endurance will yield victory — and neither is prepared to accept defeat.
5.2. Time as a Strategic Variable
Wars end when one side recognizes that continuing is no longer sustainable.
Today, however, the economic and military resources of all actors — direct and indirect — remain vast.
As long as the costs are perceived as bearable, the conflict will remain “open-ended”, oscillating in intensity but without closure.
Time is no longer neutral; it is a geopolitical resource.
6. The War as a Mirror of the 21st Century
6.1. From Regional War to Systemic Conflict
The war in Ukraine is no longer confined to Europe’s borders. It has become part of a global transformation.
The conflict has accelerated trends already in motion:
-
the return of hard-power politics,
-
the crisis of multilateralism,
-
and the end of the illusion of peaceful globalization.
From the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, the same forces are at work: the world is searching for a new balance of power — and doing so through confrontation, not consensus.
6.2. The New Global Fault Lines
The post-Ukraine world will likely be structured around three dividing lines:
-
West vs. Eurasia — between liberal democracies and authoritarian powers;
-
North vs. Global South — between mature economies and emerging powers seeking recognition;
-
Technology vs. Politics — between the speed of innovation and the inertia of governance.
The Ukrainian war intersects all three.
It is not only a military confrontation but a struggle over who defines the norms of the 21st century — in politics, energy, and technology alike.
7. What Kind of Peace?
7.1. Peace as Systemic Redefinition
In reality, what many call “peace” today might only mark the end of one phase of conflict.
A genuine peace will require a comprehensive reconfiguration of the global order — in security, trade, and technology.
Like 1945 or 1991, only a systemic transformation will bring lasting stability.
Until then, every peace plan will remain fragile, partial, and temporary.
7.2. The Role of Europe and the West
For Europe and the West, the challenge is twofold:
-
to prevent the war from escalating into a direct global confrontation;
-
and to imagine a future where security is not built solely on deterrence.
This requires a new strategic vision, combining diplomacy, economic resilience, and technological innovation.
Peace, ultimately, will not emerge from a single treaty but from a recognized and accepted equilibrium among major powers.
Conclusion: Conflict as a Mirror of Power
The illusion of an imminent peace in Ukraine stems from a world weary of war.
But history reminds us that peace cannot simply be declared — it must be anchored in a new balance of power.
As long as the war remains a symbol of the struggle for global hegemony, every truce will be temporary.
The task of our century is not only to end hostilities but to understand what kind of world will emerge from this conflict.
In the end, peace is not the end of history — it is the beginning of a new phase of power.
SEO Meta Description
An in-depth geopolitical analysis of the illusions of peace in Ukraine: why the war has become central to the redefinition of global power and the transition to a multipolar world order.
SEO Keywords
Ukraine war analysis, peace in Ukraine, geopolitics 2025, global power balance, new world order, Europe and Russia, multipolar world, Western strategy, hybrid warfare, international diplomacy, global security.