Russia perceives itself as having momentum and believes its military position will strengthen in the coming months. This confidence removes any urgency to negotiate or make significant concessions, making it the most significant impediment to ending the conflict.

The most significant challenge to a lasting peace is not agreeing on territorial lines but on the implementation sequence. Debates over whether a ceasefire, troop withdrawal, security guarantees, or referendums should come first create complex logistical and trust issues that could easily cause a deal to collapse.

A swift peace deal in Ukraine might not be the preferred outcome for all its European partners. Some may see a longer conflict as a strategic opportunity to bolster their own military capabilities while Russia is occupied.

A ceasefire won't eliminate underlying tensions. Instead, it could create new flashpoints, such as a breakdown of the agreement or instability in Belarus, potentially dragging NATO into a future conflict more directly than the current war.

Different parties are negotiating separate security guarantees and other arrangements in isolation. This prevents the necessary trade-offs for a holistic deal. A successful outcome requires getting all key stakeholders at the same table to discuss all issues together.

Ukraine's most realistic theory of success is not reclaiming all territory militarily, but leveraging its advantages to stabilize the front and inflict unsustainable casualties and economic costs on Russia. This strategy aims to make the war so futile for Moscow that it forces a favorable negotiated settlement.

Russia's provocations are designed to create dilemmas for European nations, forcing them to question whether the US would support a kinetic response. This uncertainty weakens the transatlantic alliance and strengthens Russia's psychological position for future negotiations over Ukraine and European security.

This strategy involves supplying Ukraine only with defensive systems (like air defense) during peacetime. Offensive capabilities (long-range missiles) would be stockpiled nearby and immediately provided if Russia violates the ceasefire, creating a powerful incentive for compliance.

A hastily constructed peace deal that stalls during implementation would create a 'neither war nor peace' scenario. This state of limbo would benefit Russia in the near term, as Ukraine would face pressure to demobilize and struggle with investment uncertainty, while Russia could maintain its military posture.