Peace in Ukraine: Perspectives from Academia and Think Tanks
By: Katie Hetherington, Sindija Beta, and Paul R. Williams
Introduction
The first quarter of 2025 has witnessed significant developments in Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, driven in part by the new Trump administration’s unprecedented approach to peace efforts. Galvanized by a shifting global order and as the war enters its fourth year, world leaders are urgently exploring avenues to end Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In parallel, prominent think tanks and experts are actively contributing to the discourse, offering their own proposals and frameworks for peace. While these ideas vary, a common thread emerges: any lasting resolution must address Ukraine’s security, sovereignty, and long-term stability. In this post, we explore some of the recurring themes in recent analyses—from robust security guarantees to the need for strong transatlantic leadership—while unpacking the difficult trade-offs negotiators must consider.
Robust Security Guarantees: The Cornerstone of a Lasting Peace
Across the board, analysts agree that a ceasefire or negotiated agreement without credible security assurances is untenable. Even if hostilities temporarily pause, Ukraine must be provided with binding guarantees that deter future aggression. This could take the form of an enhanced international peacekeeping framework (in several possible iterations), continued military aid, or legally binding security commitments from Western powers. The discussion around legally binding security commitments particularly centers on the possibility of future Ukrainian NATO membership and the viability of alternative security arrangements, such as bilateral security commitments offered by the U.S. to Israel.
There is consensus that, without such guarantees, any peace deal risks being nothing more than a pause in the fighting rather than a long-term solution to Russia’s aggression. The challenge, many analysts agree, is to ensure that these guarantees are robust enough without creating new vulnerabilities: while security guarantees must give Ukraine real, lasting assurance of its independence—so that it can govern freely and resist future aggression—they must not create complete dependence on external military forces or specific security arrangements and disregard the need to build and strengthen of Ukraine’s own security and defense capabilities. Furthermore, several commentators acknowledge the concern over possible fierce resistance from Russia should security guarantees involve NATO troops and fears over a possible NATO-Russia confrontation.
The Territorial Question
The issue of territorial integrity remains one of the most contentious aspects of any potential peace agreement for Ukraine, and as such, is at the forefront of most analysts’ minds. Many argue that any lasting peace must involve the full restoration of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. They contend that allowing Russia to retain control over occupied territories would not only legitimize aggression and undermine international law but also set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. From this standpoint, any peace deal that involves territorial concessions would weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty and embolden authoritarian regimes to pursue territorial expansion through force.
However, other commentators suggest that a negotiated settlement may require difficult compromises, including territorial concessions. Some institutions have explored scenarios in which Ukraine might agree to freeze the conflict along current frontlines in exchange for security guarantees and economic aid. From a more realist perspective, some experts argue that, given the military realities on the ground, continuing a prolonged war may be more damaging than a carefully negotiated ceasefire and follow-on peace agreement that involves territorial compromises. While this view remains controversial, particularly if it requires de jure territorial concessions, it highlights the broader debate between those who believe a full Ukrainian victory is essential for lasting peace and those who prioritize an end to hostilities, even if it means accepting tough compromises.
The Transatlantic Question: Can Europe Secure Peace Without U.S. Support?
The current geopolitical climate has also sparked intense debate about the roles of Europe and the United States in ensuring Ukraine’s security. With uncertain and precarious U.S. commitment under the Trump administration, the majority of analysts note the need for an increased European leadership role. At the same time, most recognize the formidable challenges Europe faces in replacing the full spectrum of U.S. support. Analysts highlight that Europe’s capacity to plug the gap left by the U.S., especially in critical areas like air defense, long-range missile technology, and satellite communications, is—at least at present—limited.
Analysts increasingly consider the possibility and form of a European-led military response—such as deploying an independent peacekeeping or reassurance force—but generally acknowledge that such a response carries significant political risks. It requires a high degree of cohesion and willingness among European nations—which, it should be noted, European leaders have increasingly demonstrated in recent weeks. It also risks antagonizing Russia further: Russian leadership has made it clear that any presence of NATO or European troops in Ukraine is unacceptable and may be viewed as an escalation. This underscores a dual challenge: Europe must rapidly enhance its military capacity without provoking further aggression, all while operating in a geopolitical environment where the traditional U.S. security umbrella is in question.
The current debate among analysts reflects a broader reckoning with the future of transatlantic security architecture. Many experts agree that even as Europe works to bolster its own defense capabilities, a strong U.S. commitment remains indispensable for ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and deterring further aggression. Without this partnership, the risk is that Ukraine’s security could be compromised, leaving the region vulnerable to renewed conflict.
The Role of Economic Leverage
Economic sanctions have been a central tool in the West’s response to Russia’s aggression, and they continue to be critical. However, economic leverage in a peace proposal for Ukraine is evolving well beyond traditional sanctions, as demonstrated by the Trump administration’s prioritization of economic incentives and trade deals as tools for peace.
The role of Russia’s frozen central bank assets in a peace agreement continues to occupy the minds of commentators. Many have long proposed that a portion of the estimated $300 billion worth of frozen Russian assets could be redirected and used as a bargaining chip: if Russia agrees to concrete peace measures (such as a verified withdrawal of forces or the acceptance of binding security guarantees for Ukraine), then some of these assets could be released as a form of economic relief. Proposals also include the use of these assets, at least partially, to support Ukraine’s defense and post-war reconstruction efforts, providing Ukraine with much-needed resources to rebuild its infrastructure and bolster its sovereignty.
The Trump administration’s proposed U.S.-Ukraine rare earth minerals deal has also elicited diverse opinions from analysts. Some contend that the creation of firm economic ties between the U.S. and Ukraine could create a vested American interest in Ukraine’s security and stability, potentially acting as something of a security guarantee—an assumption that has been indicated by the U.S. administration. However, many commentators are skeptical about the tangible security benefits for Ukraine, cautioning that the deal may primarily serve U.S. economic interests and commoditize Ukraine’s sovereignty without offering it substantial returns or formal security assurances. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the feasibility of extracting these resources, given that significant mineral deposits are located in regions currently under Russian control, necessitating considerable investment and stability to fully exploit these assets. As a means of facilitating lasting peace, the efficacy of the minerals deal and the wider transactional approach it represents remain a subject of active debate among experts.
Justice versus Peace?
The question of justice and the indictments issued for high-ranking Russian officials is another key theme that has sparked extensive discussion among commentators. Many human rights advocates emphasize that justice must not be sidelined in the pursuit of peace. They argue that prosecuting those responsible for crimes such as the forcible transfer of children and civilians, attacks on civilian infrastructure, massacres, and systematic torture is vital to upholding international law and preventing future violations. Without accountability, they contend, any peace settlement would be fragile, signaling that perpetrators can act with impunity and leaving victims without redress. Some point to the environment of impunity in Russia, as a result of the lack of accountability for Soviet-era crimes such as the Holodomor and other human rights violations committed under oppressive Soviet rule, as root causes of the atrocities occurring in Ukraine today.
However, some analysts caution that making full accountability a prerequisite for peace could complicate negotiations, or render a settlement unattainable. They argue that pushing for justice may delay peace talks, as Putin would have little incentive to engage in negotiations if it risks exposing key Russian leadership figures to international prosecution.
Conclusion
In today’s rapidly evolving international landscape, commentators’ proposals for ending Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine evolve alongside global political dynamics. Yet, it remains that a durable settlement must not only end the immediate violence but also protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic future. Analysts largely agree that achieving this will require a carefully balanced strategy that integrates military strength, robust security guarantees, gradual diplomatic progress, and a firm commitment to some degree of international accountability. At its heart, the challenge lies in crafting a peace process that is not just a temporary ceasefire but one that builds the foundation for a stable, secure, and sovereign Ukraine—ensuring long-term peace and stability for the country and the region.