A Ukraine Peace Deal Won't Last

Some scholars (Foreign Affairs: 8/17/2025) argue that partial peace settlements - like Korea in the 1950s, Berlin in the 1970s, or Cyprus in the 1970s - prove wars can be frozen even if they are not fully resolved. History does show that such armistices can endure. But those arrangements worked because the great powers, despite their rivalry, shared a basic interest in stability. 
Ukraine is different. Russia thrives on instability. Vladimir Putin needs the war to sustain his domestic legitimacy and to sap NATO’s resolve. China, meanwhile, benefits from discounted Russian energy and from an America tied down in Europe rather than focusing on Asia. Both Moscow and Beijing welcome division in the West, and both see U.S. power and credibility weakened every day the conflict continues. 

The Trump presidency only deepens their conviction that America is in decline. His attacks on NATO, his trade wars, and his public humiliation of Ukraine’s president all signal to adversaries that Washington may no longer anchor the international order. For Putin and Xi, that means there is little reason to accept a durable peace. Time, they believe, is on their side. 

Any so-called peace deal struck under these conditions would not be a settlement but a pause—a window for Moscow to rearm and for Beijing to strengthen its hand. Without a real convergence of interests among the great powers, Ukraine risks being trapped in a Munich-style illusion of security. The world cannot afford to mistake a temporary truce for lasting peace.