Any resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war hinges on a peace deal, but the terms remain highly contested. Discussions often center on two fundamentally opposed visions: Ukraine's demand for full territorial restoration and Russia's insistence on recognized control over annexed regions and mandated Ukrainian neutrality. A deal—especially one favoring Moscow’s strategic interests—presents a complex calculus of immediate stability versus long-term strategic compromise. Analyzing the potential frameworks reveals profound geopolitical winners and losers, most notably highlighting why the European Union (EU) remains fiercely opposed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accepting unfavourable terms.
For Ukraine, a peace deal is a double-edged sword defined by necessity and sovereignty. The primary benefit is an immediate end to the destruction, the preservation of civilian lives, and the potential for a massive, internationally financed reconstruction effort, possibly utilizing frozen Russian assets. Furthermore, some proposals offer an accelerated path to EU membership, securing Kyiv's future Western alignment. The overwhelming negative, however, is the forfeiture of sovereign territory, including Crimea and parts of the Donbas, which Kyiv views as legitimizing land grabs by force. Crucially, proposed frameworks often stipulate a cap on the size of the Ukrainian military and a permanent renunciation of NATO membership. This limitation on national security capacity creates a perpetual state of vulnerability, weakening Ukraine’s deterrence against future aggression.
Conversely, for Russia, a peace agreement largely translates to economic relief and geopolitical gain. The major positive is the formal recognition of its territorial annexations by Kyiv, which validates President Putin’s core objective. A deal would typically involve the easing or lifting of debilitating Western sanctions, allowing Russia to re-integrate into global finance and energy markets and stabilize its economy. The cessation of hostilities would also end the enormous human and financial costs of the ongoing conflict. The drawbacks, from Moscow's perspective, include failing to achieve the initial maximalist goal of regime change in Kyiv and the potential obligation to release substantial frozen state assets dedicated to Ukrainian reconstruction.
The European Union's deep opposition to any peace deal involving major Ukrainian concessions stems from fundamental strategic interests and democratic principles. First and foremost is the rejection of the principle that borders can be redrawn by military force. Allowing Russia to profit territorially from aggression sets a devastating precedent for all EU members, particularly those on Russia’s border, undermining decades of international law. Second, a pact that permanently limits Ukraine’s military and bars it from NATO—often without ironclad security guarantees—is seen by Brussels as creating a permanent security deficit in Eastern Europe. An unstable, militarily constrained Ukraine would serve as a constant threat that the EU would eventually have to manage or defend, making the price of short-term peace too high for the continent's long-term security.
Ultimately, a Russian-friendly peace deal requires Zelenskyy to trade the highest moral and constitutional principle—sovereignty—for immediate humanitarian relief. While ending the violence is a necessity, for the EU, the cost of recognizing military conquest outweighs the benefit of temporary stability. The continent views the long-term failure to deter aggression as a far greater threat to its own security than the continuation of the current, strategically contained conflict.