How should the Ukraine war end? A historian, an ex-CIA officer and politicians disagree
September 29, 2026 · 16 min read
Serhii Plokhy frames the war as the last act of a collapsing Russian empire, while Mike Baker, Lex Fridman and Vivek Ramaswamy weigh peace talks, Zelensky's position and whether America should push for a quick settlement. Laying their views side by side shows what each path to peace assumes and what it risks.
The rules, numbers and steps worth keeping in front of you.
- How the war should end depends on whether it is about empire or about security.
- Serhii Plokhy: the war is about empire, not NATO; assurances may only pause it.
- Plokhy's three short-term outcomes: victory for either side, or stalemate and compromise.
- Plokhy's Korea model: armistice comes after political change and after both sides lose faith in battlefield gains.
- Legal locks: Russia's constitution claims five Ukrainian regions, and a Zelensky decree rules out talks with Russia.
- Mike Baker: fast US-Russia talks forced Europe to engage; a deal without Ukraine goes nowhere.
- Baker: EU institutions and countries allocated about $130 billion, more than the US, though not all has been paid out.
- Lex Fridman: negotiate from strength, and respect every leader at the table.
- Fridman: corruption, censorship and suspended elections can only be fixed after peace.
- Vivek Ramaswamy: give Russia NATO assurances in exchange for monitorable commitments, including leaving its alliance with China.
- All agree Russia was the aggressor and Ukraine must be part of any deal.
- Dispute over 2022: Ramaswamy blames Boris Johnson; Plokhy says Russia's terms invited conquest.
- Plokhy: the fear of nuclear war that restrained past leaders is fading.
- Casualty figures are Fridman's estimate; aid figures count allocations.
This is the short form. The full insight has every expert's reasoning, their own words and the sources.