How should the Ukraine war end? A historian, an ex-CIA officer and politicians disagree
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.
How the Ukraine war should end depends on what you think the war is. Four voices give four answers, and each rests on a different assumption about Putin's aims and carries a different risk: a frozen conflict, a reward for aggression, or a war that grinds on.
Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy calls it "the war of the Soviet succession", the latest stage in the Russian Empire's long collapse. He argues the war is about empire, not NATO. Membership for Ukraine was effectively blocked in 2008, Russia did not redeploy forces when Finland joined, and Putin's own writing centers on history and one people. In the short run he sees three outcomes: victory for either side, or a stalemate and compromise. His model is Korea, where an armistice came only after political change and after both sides stopped believing in battlefield gains. Two legal facts stand in the way of a return to the 2022 borders: Russia wrote five Ukrainian regions into its constitution, and Zelensky issued a decree ruling out talks with Russia.
Former CIA officer Mike Baker welcomes Trump's fast opening of US-Russia talks, even without Ukraine at the table, because it forced Europe to engage. He expects Ukraine to be brought in soon, since otherwise the talks go nowhere. He also notes that EU institutions and countries have allocated around $130 billion in aid, more than the United States, which he says buys Europe a seat.
Lex Fridman, who has family in both Ukraine and Russia, argues peace must be negotiated from strength and with respect for every leader at the table, Putin included. He sees now as the third window and perhaps the best. He admires Zelensky but worries that a leader so close to the suffering wants justice, not peace.
Vivek Ramaswamy wants an immediate deal. Russia would get assurances on NATO, some territorial resolution and reopened trade. In return it would make hard, monitorable commitments, including leaving its military alliance with China.
They agree a negotiated end is coming, that Ukraine must be part of it, that Russia was the aggressor and that Ukraine has corruption problems. They disagree most on why the war started. If it is about security, assurances can satisfy Russia. If it is about empire, as Plokhy argues, assurances may only pause it. They also dispute the 2022 talks. Ramaswamy says Boris Johnson persuaded Zelensky to keep fighting. Plokhy says Russia's terms would have invited conquest.
The article flags limits. Aid figures count allocations, not payments. Fridman's casualty figures are his own estimate. Plokhy offers a description, not a plan to stop the killing now. None of the sources has the record of later talks.
What to do with it: before judging a peace plan, ask what the war is about. Check whether a deal addresses the legal locks, includes Ukraine and Europe, and rests on verifiable commitments. Separate allocated aid from money paid out. And weigh escalation, since Plokhy's lesson from the last 70 years is "how to keep the Cold War cold."