Frozen Conflict or Endless War: Two Futures for Ukraine

The uncomfortable truth is that Ukraine cannot reconquer all of its territory by military means — not in a timeframe that European publics will sustain. The question is not whether some Ukrainian territory will remain under Russian control, but whether we acknowledge this reality or continue to fund a war of attrition while pretending otherwise.

A frozen conflict — with a de facto ceasefire line, international monitoring, and a political framework for Kyiv's eventual EU accession — is not justice. But it is survival. The alternative is a multi-generational conflict that destroys what remains of Ukrainian civil society while European defence budgets buckle under the strain.

The realist case for a frozen conflict assumes that Russia will respect a ceasefire line. History suggests otherwise. The 2015 Minsk agreements created a frozen conflict in Donbas. Russia used the years of "frozen" conflict to rebuild its forces and plan a larger invasion. A second frozen conflict would be a third invasion rehearsal.

More fundamentally, a settlement that allows Russia to retain Ukrainian territory rewards aggression. That signal — that territorial conquest is a viable and sustainable strategy — will not be lost on other revisionist powers. The cost of sending that signal is not borne only by Ukraine; it is borne by every small country that depends on the rules-based international order for its security.