There are a couple of different ways of interpreting Paul Rogers’s piece at openDemocracy urging Ukraine to the negotiating table with Russia:
It seems possible that the view from Washington now is that any threat of escalation by Putin would be a bluff. Russia’s status has been so diminished by the failures of recent months that even a nuclear threat would be widely condemned by many countries, including supporters of Russia, especially in the Global South. The threat itself would be an admission of abject failure, damaging Russia’s position in the world so much that it would be better to sue for peace, starting with a ceasefire which would be widely welcomed.
The problem is that this may be wrong and a serious misreading of Putin’s world view. After all, western states do not have a good track record of predicting the course of major conflicts – witness Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The more that wise minds can argue the case for a negotiated end to the war short of full victory for either side the better.
One of them is that it’s a cowardly caving in to Russia. Another is that it is an acknowledgement not just of reality but of how much we don’t know.
To my eye what is happening at present is that both sides but particularly the Ukrainians are escalating. I doubt that will have the desired effect. Don’t expect Russia to surrender Crimea at all let alone lightly. And don’t expect Putin to be replaced by a friendlier regime—it will be the opposite if anything.
Looking at past data; if the war ends with a negotiation, it is likely not until one of Putin, Zelensky, or Biden have left office.
The war is entering the category of “destructive major conflict”. As in the number of casualties entering the scale of Iran/Iraq, Korea, Vietnam.
I still think the odds the war ends not in a negotiation but in an unimaginable catastrophe is far higher than policymakers like to admit.