Can negotiation build sustainable peace?

In the face of protracted and complex conflicts like the one between Russia and Ukraine, sustainable agreements are achieved by addressing the real interests of each party. From the perspective of the IAE Business School Consensus Center, every negotiation requires identifying these underlying interests, even when they are not explicitly stated. Rather than insisting on territorial restitution by Ukraine or Russia maintaining control over Crimea and Donbas, it is about understanding what each party needs to accept an agreement.

However, the recent dynamics of the conflict are moving in the opposite direction. The recent escalation of the war has once again strained the playing field and hardened positions. Ukraine reported that Russia used more than 5,000 drones and 330 missiles to attack cities in June alone. This scenario reinforces the need for credible mediation, recognized by both sides. Figures with symbolic authority, such as Pope Leo XIV, could lend legitimacy to a potential process.

However, for this mediation to be effective, it is key to broaden our understanding of who is involved in the conflict. Not all relevant actors participate at the negotiating table; many exert influence from outside, influencing decisions through diplomatic or economic pressure. Often, the viability of an agreement does not depend solely on the will of the formal parties.

Trump has expressed his willingness to mediate in the conflict, driven by a desire to portray himself as the architect of an unlikely peace. His competitive style favors narratives of personal triumph. However, if that need is channeled constructively, his intervention could facilitate concessions: pressuring Putin to accept a ceasefire in exchange for control over Crimea or Donbas, and, with Zelensky, moving toward guarantees such as Ukraine's integration into NATO.

For his part, Putin also responds to a logic of symbolic power. Restoring Russian national pride and asserting his geopolitical influence are key to understanding his position. Without a solution that preserves his internal image of strength and historic achievement, any concessions will be unfeasible. A possible solution must recognize this dimension and deliver certain results that allow him to present himself to his people as the successful defender of great Russia.

In contrast, Zelensky has demonstrated greater strategic adaptability. His leadership has oscillated between military resistance, calls for international support, and a willingness to engage in dialogue. From a negotiating perspective, his position allows him to articulate a peace discourse based on achievements such as national survival, international recognition, and progress toward NATO.

But for these achievements to be sustained over time, any lasting agreement must contemplate not only the end of hostilities but also mechanisms to prevent future aggression. Continued military support for Ukraine by European Union countries takes on a strategic nature, especially given the increased Russian offensive and the recent suspension of arms shipments by the United States. A peace that ignores this will be a fragile, short-term peace.

In addition to institutional guarantees, economic incentives can catalyze peace. The reconstruction of Ukraine and access to strategic resources such as rare earths could offer actors like Trump a justification for pushing for an agreement, coupled with the symbolic incentive of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. However, tensions between Iran and Israel reshape the geopolitical landscape and could divert attention from the European front.

Ultimately, these dimensions require us, in the Ukraine-Russia case, to rethink negotiations beyond traditional frameworks. The key is to understand the nature of interests, consider the leaders' symbolic motivations, and design a solution that allows everyone to claim some kind of victory.

*/**Director and coordinator of the Consensus Negotiation Center at IAE Business School.