The four-year mark of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine passed this week on Tuesday, 24th February 2026. As Russia and Ukraine enter the fifth year of the war, both states remain locked in combat, heavily relying on air strikes even as they participate in multiple rounds of United States arranged peace talks.
For Ukraine, the winter has been one of the harshest of the war, with civilians once again bearing the brunt of sustained attacks. For Russia, the financial and military costs continue to mount. Yet despite the strain on both societies, the fighting goes on.
If there is to be any realistic path forward, the question of compromise, particularly over territory, can no longer be avoided.
Developments on the ground
Just days before the recent trilateral peace talks in Geneva on the 17th and 18th February 2026, Ukraine launched an overnight attack on the Russia Black Sea port in the Krasnodar region, damaging an oil storage tank, warehouse and terminals. The attacks marked one of Ukraine’s most intense strikes in the war. Enabled by Ukraine’s defense industrial base (DIB), the state has heavily relied on the use of aerial warfare, using drones to target Russia’s oil sector in the attempt to prohibit Russia from profiting from oil, which largely financially supports Russia’s forces.
On the same weekend, Russian forces attacked Ukraine in the Odesa region overnight, hitting railway infrastructure, oil facilities, and Ukraine’s energy grid. President Zelensky reported that the attack has afflicted significant damage impacting the energy situation across the entire country.
Even on the eve of trilateral peace talks, Zelensky announced preparations for a “massive strike” from Russia, instructing Ukraine’s air force chief, defence minister and head of state-owned electricity company Ukrenergo to prepare additional protective measures.
Russian attacks make part of a wider campaign on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The deliberate targeting of Ukraine’s critical infrastructure is termed by Ukrainian officials as “weaponizing winter”, utilizing missile and drone strikes to target. Described as the harshest winter of the war, millions of Ukrainian citizens endure freezing temperatures with no reliable access to heating water, or electricity.
Geneva trilateral peace talks
Amid these targeted attacks, a third round of negotiations took place between the United States, Russia and Ukraine. These trilateral peace efforts follow two earlier rounds of discussion led by US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, which failed to break the deadlock, particularly over the future of Ukraine’s Donbas industrial heartland, much of which remains occupied by Russian forces. This issue alone cast a shadow over the latest talks.
Previous attempts at a peace deal have been criticised by Ukraine and its allies for appearing to favour Russia’s demands, especially when it comes to territorial concessions. Following the trilateral peace talks this February, Ukrainian officials did announce developments on humanitarian matters. Beyond those limited developments, Kyiv continues to face calls for compromise, while Russia declares it will not retreat from its core demands.
On the question of the eastern territory, President Zelensky has made it clear the talks did little to address the territory disputes. The Russian delegation refused to drop demands for Kyiv to surrender the eastern Donbas region and the Zaporizhzhia plant.
Ukraine’s chief negotiator, Rustem Umerov, noted the engagement of both political and military branches allowed for some progress on technical “military issues” such as location of the frontline and ceasefire monitoring. But even within Ukraine’s delegation, there is frustration. One official described that the territorial question is a far more “sensitive” political matter and without any advancement there, the February talks are meaningless.
What are the demands?
At the heart of the negotiations is the core issue: Moscow and Kyiv’s positions on territory remain far apart.
During the trilateral peace talks, Moscow held firm on its demand that Ukraine cede the remaining 20% of the eastern region of Donetsk which is still under Ukrainian control. Further, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe, has been under Russian control since March 2022 and remains a major sticking point in their dispute. Ukraine has demanded its return, proposing shared control with the US. This is highly unlikely to gain acceptance from Russia.
Ukraine insists that a comprehensive ceasefire must accompany or immediately follow a peace agreement.
Meanwhile, Moscow demands far more territory than it has captured since 2014. It maintains that Ukraine must cede the entire Donbas region, including territories Russia has failed to secure militarily, before a ceasefire will come into effect. Zeleknsy has refused to cede to this demand as he believes it is politically and socially unacceptable amongst the Ukrainian people.
A January 2026 survey showing 54% of Ukrainians reject the withdraw of Ukraine’s troops from parts of Donbas it still controls and transferring the land to Russia, even in exchange for security guarantees from the USA and Europe. Only 39% are ready to agree to the deal, only with the requirement of substantial security guarantees.
Russia has also claimed a new government in Kyiv will be required, and only then it would be possible to sign a peace treaty and any legitimate documents on future interstate cooperation. Moscow is not only negotiating over land disputes, but over Ukraine’s political future.
The issue of compromise
Following the February trilateral peace talks, President Zelensky repeated his frustration that the US consistently calls upon Ukraine, rather than Russia, to make concessions for a peace deal. With the US imposed June deadline for an agreement, President Trump called upon Ukraine to “come to the table, fast”.
Meanwhile, Russia has approached the talks with what officials describe as a “tough” stance, showing no intention to adjust demands in the spirit of compromise. Moscow’s refusal to re-evaluate its core conditions raises an important question: how long can Russia sustain the conflict under its current trajectory?
What the Kremlin initially framed as a “special military operation”, has now resulted in the deadliest war in Europe since World War II, with hundreds of thousands of military deaths and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that the total Russian casualties are over 1.2 million including up to 325,000 military deaths. President Zelensky reported that 30,000 Russian troops were lost in January, with UK reporting Russia is becoming increasingly reliant on foreign fighters to fill in its depleted lines.
Ukraine has also endured a staggering loss of life, and although casualties are difficult to assess during wartime, it is estimated that the Ukrainian military casualties sit at around 600,000 with around 140,000 to 200,000 military deaths. Ukraine has suffered significant civilian casualties with approximately 41,534 wounded and 15,168 civilian deaths since the start of the war.
On the ground, Ukraine has recaptured territory at its fastest pace in three years, gaining 78 square miles in five days which is equal to Russia’s advances for the whole month of December.
The economic toll on Russia is also mounting. Moscow is now pouring half of its federal budget into military expenditure. As Russia’s budget deficit grows, the government has raised VAT from 20% to 22%, with the additional revenue directed towards defence and security spending.
If compromise remains off the table, the costs, for both sides of the war, will only continue to grow.
Recommendations
As the recent trilateral peace talks have once again centred around the territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region, it is increasingly clear that this issue sits at the heart of the stalemate. Without any movement here, negotiations are unlikely to progress.
The Next Century Foundation has previously proposed a model of autonomy over Crimea, the Donbas region, Zaporozhye/Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson as the most viable way forward. Specifically, for the Donbas region (Donetsk and Lugansk/Luhansk Oblasts) an autonomous region of shared sovereignty would mean:
- Dual citizenship for residents
- Local governance models
- Local taxation authority
- An open border acting as a trade bridge between Russia, Ukraine, and the EU
- Special trade agreements similar to Northern Ireland. For trade purposes, Donbas is regarded as part of Russia by Russia and retains open borders with Ukraine and conversely part of Ukraine by Ukraine and retains open borders with Russia
- Donbas’s unique dual market access would allow businesses to trade freely with both Russia and Ukraine
- Residents of Donbas, including Ukrainian and Russian citizens will be exempt from military service
A crucial point is that Ukraine need not recognise or acknowledge Russian de jure sovereignty over Donbas or Crimea, and Russia need not recognise Ukrainian de jure sovereignty. This must not stop both states moving into an armistice, a legally binding agreement between both parties which would bring a permanent end to the conflict.
This framework would allow both Ukraine and Russia to retain a degree of stake in the contested territories, without forcing Kyiv into a drastic territorial concession. The model of autonomy offers a structured compromise, one that acknowledges political realities while preserving Ukrainian sovereignty.
As argued in an earlier Next Century Foundation written statement to the United Nations, such an approach could help bring an end to the war now entering its fifth year. It would not only provide a pathway to peace in this conflict but also set a precedent for resolving similar territorial disputes, demonstrating that diplomacy and compromise can still prevail even after years of war.
The Next Century Foundation strongly urges a ceasefire be brought into effect as soon as possible during the development of a peace agreement.
Conclusion
Another round of trilateral peace talks is expected in early March, with discussions set to continue over the shape of a potential peace agreement. If this process is to move beyond repetition, something must shift.
To avoid an endless stalemate, the United States must press Russia to engage seriously with the idea of compromise. While Russian officials continue to project a “tough” negotiating stance, they cannot ignore the mounting military and economic costs of prolonging the war.
At present, both the United States and Russia appear to be looking to Ukraine for further concessions. Yet, a sustainable peace cannot rest solely on Ukrainian sacrifice. The model of autonomy and special status regardless of sovereignty claims over disputed areas offers a more balanced path forward, one that addresses cultural, political and economic concerns without forcing Ukraine to submit to Russia’s demands.
If compromise is ever to become more than a talking point, it must apply to all parties involved.
