Off-Ramps

In recent weeks, the conflict in Ukraine and the geo-political events transpiring throughout Europe have intensified.  Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov recently said that Moscow is already in a “real war” with NATO and the EU, while French President Macron and British Prime Minister Starmer have retaliated in a war of words that have further enflamed tensions.  In Ukraine, Russia continues to dominate the Eastern front through attritional warfare devoid of explosive breakthroughs but nonetheless is making territorial gains.  Less publicized is the recent warning from the IAEA concerning detonated drones near the perimeter of a nuclear power plant located in southern Ukraine.  All of this points towards escalation, the blurring of battle lines, and diminishing hopes for diplomatic repair or off-ramps.

As negotiation windows seem to narrow, now is the time to examine all options in an effort to seek off-ramps.  This war is increasingly one of attrition, the debate is over, its simple arithmetic at this point and the odds favor Russia.  Ukraine has failed to prevent Russian incremental advances along the Eastern front and their counteroffensive in the Kursk Oblast has failed to achieve any meaningful objectives.  As support for this war wanes, it is becoming more and more evident that the collective west must act now in order to restore stability to the region and save Ukrainian lives. 

Throwing money and arms at Ukraine – in any amount is not going to save Ukraine, they need boots on the ground.  Russia can absorb the losses, Ukraine cannot, it’s really that simple.  Mainstream analysts, that is, analysts that are inclined to placate the masses and follow the narrative contend that Russian offenses have stalled out signifying imminent Ukrainian victory.  This type of unrealistic optimism is not helpful as it only fuels NEOCON desires to continue the war which will ultimately cost Ukraine a generation of men.  Others contend that Ukraine’s deep strikes into Russia have disrupted Russia’s ability to export refined fuels, this too is an overestimation.  Russia has demonstrated time and time again that it can recover from attacks on Russian oil refineries by responding appropriately.  I believe economists predicted Russia’s demise more than two years ago, yet they found a work around response to international sanctions by deploying a “shadow fleet”.  While I do not support Russia’s illegal invasion in the least bit, I feel that an honest assessment is desperately needed at this point, it’s been more than 11 years and Russia is still firmly entrenched.  (The initial invasion of Crimea occurred in February of 2014).

Now is the time to dispense with the escalatory rhetoric (Starmer and Macron) and de-escalate to reduce the risk of a wider war.  We need a structured framework that facilitates an off-ramp to reduce the chances of a NATO-Russia clash or nuclear crisis.  In the chart below, I’ve identified four commonly used off-ramps that could be applied to get this thing turned around.  I’ve added the additional “must have” option to renew the START Treaty, this is a non-negotiable in my opinion, reducing the risk of a nuclear confrontation must always be added to the calculus.

The negotiated cease fire option was attempted through a US brokered ceasefire as well as through the Istanbul talks in the early Summer of 2025.  Neither of these opportunities produced any lasting effects as there is simply too much mistrust and tainted suspicions among the Ukrainians and the Russians.  Neither side truly believes that a ceasefire would be honored completely, instead they believe that a ceasefire would be used as an opportunity to regroup, rearm and reposition.  Also, ceasefires are temporary measures that do not address the larger issues at play, a ceasefire is not the best option to pursue given the history between the two parties.

Territorial concessions are a highly contentious topic that dates back to decades of Ukrainian resistance to Russian expansionism.  At this stage of remediation, the third rail topics should be avoided as they may lead to deeper divisions and further escalate tensions throughout the region.  Territorial concessions do not address the root causes of the war (NATO expansion) and they may end up weakening Ukraine’s sovereignty while rewarding Russian aggression.  While these topics must be addressed, it’s too sensitive at this early stage of remediation.

Smaller scale agreements, energy ceasefires – which limit attacks on energy infrastructure, and embassy restoration are good methods to restore trust but it’s simply too late.  Incremental confidence building measures should have been applied by the collective West more than a year ago.  These types of limited agreements and arrangements can build trust and are easier to negotiate than land swaps but at this stage of the war, it’s simply too little too late.

Of the four identified options for off-ramps, the preferred option is to simply restore full diplomatic envoys to Moscow.  The collective West must be all-in on the restoration of diplomacy with incentives.  This option involves restoring full diplomatic relations with Russia and lifting some sanctions as a gesture of good will to initiate on good terms.  This option is less risky, produces more and re-establishes the collective West as the legitimate body once again, while China and the rest of the World watch.  Peace brokering requires humility, unfortunately, leaders in the western hemisphere operate within the paradigm of the “macro hubris”.

Macro hubris" refers to overconfidence in the ability of large nations leading to flawed decisions and potential disaster.  It is an application of the ancient Greek concept of hubris to the macroscopic level of societal or governmental behavior, describing how policymakers or collective groups overestimate their knowledge and capabilities while underestimating risks, resulting in aggressive strategies and increased vulnerability to failure. 

This proposed off-ramp represents only the first stage of a much broader remediation that must take place in 2026 and beyond.  These measures to re-establish diplomacy can set the conditions for expansive and productive dialogue while providing immediate pathways to reduce violence in the near term.  Lasting resolution will require a multi-phased strategy that provides long term security guarantees for Ukraine.  The current steps to off-ramp escalations are not an end state, the true test would lie in the building of a comprehensive framework that transforms fragile peace into a region that is secure and stable – that is the end state.