Ukraine and the Limits of Mediation

How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/

EDITORIAL NOTE *

This article assesses an ongoing war and the conduct of the states and leaders involved, and its closing section sketches the terms of a possible settlement. Those assessments and proposals reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the parties. The article was written in 2025 and should be read with that date in mind.

ABSTRACT

This article examines the limited effectiveness of mediation in high-intensity interstate conflicts, using the war in Ukraine as a case study. While mediation has proved useful in intrastate and post-conflict settings, it faces distinct structural, strategic, and normative challenges in other contexts. The paper explores why third-party efforts have failed to de-escalate the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and considers whether a rethinking of mediation frameworks is needed for better results in future interstate conflicts.

KEYWORDS

Ukraine, Russia, mediation, conflict resolution, diplomacy, peace process, success, failure

INTRODUCTION

Mediation has long stood as one of the most important instruments in the diplomatic repertoire for managing and resolving armed conflict. From the Camp David Accords to the Dayton Agreement, its record suggests that even protracted disputes can, under the right conditions, be brought to the negotiating table. Yet not all wars are equally receptive to mediation. High-intensity conflicts, especially those involving major power rivalry, existential stakes, and geopolitical entanglement, pose challenges that often render traditional mediation ineffective. The war in Ukraine is a striking example.

Since the full-scale invasion of February 2022, the international community has launched a series of mediation efforts, both formal and informal. From the Minsk and Istanbul talks to more recent meetings in Saudi Arabia, and initiatives by the United Nations, Turkey, China, and the African Union, none has produced a sustainable outcome. Peace remains distant, while the military, political, and symbolic stakes continue to rise. Mediation, despite its normative appeal, has been displaced by a combination of irreconcilable war objectives, entrenched distrust, the perceived bias of potential mediators, and the absence of a mutually hurting stalemate.

The return of Donald Trump to the American presidency adds a revealing dimension to the broader difficulty. Promising a swift end to the war and invoking his personal rapport with Vladimir Putin, he has presented himself as a dealmaker uniquely capable of brokering peace. His administration has so far produced sharp deadlines, threats of expanded sanctions, and public disagreement with President Zelensky. His approach, personalistic, coercive, and transactional, serves less as a decisive change than as a mirror reflecting the deeper structural difficulties of international peacemaking today.

This article argues that the failure of mediation in Ukraine is not simply the result of diplomatic missteps or errors of timing, but a symptom of systemic constraints that afflict high-intensity interstate conflicts. These constraints include power asymmetry between the parties, imperfect information, incompatible war aims, the framing of the conflict as existential, the collapse of credible neutrality among mediators, and the geopolitical instrumentalisation of peace efforts themselves. By situating Ukraine within a broader theoretical and comparative context, the paper offers a critical assessment of whether current mediation frameworks are fit for purpose in the contemporary security environment.

MAIN CORPUS

Identifying success and failure

Mediation is broadly defined as a form of third-party intervention aimed at facilitating negotiation between two or more parties in conflict. Unlike arbitration or adjudication, mediation is non-binding, voluntary, and heavily dependent on the perceived legitimacy and strategic utility of the mediator. Its flexibility makes it attractive in both intrastate and interstate disputes, but this same characteristic reveals its limitations, particularly when applied to wars between sovereign states with high stakes, high casualties, and deeply entrenched geopolitical dynamics.

When is mediation successful? Research, particularly the work of Bercovitch and Jackson (2009), has identified four primary variables that shape the success or failure of international mediation: the identity and characteristics of the conflict parties; the nature of the dispute itself; the identity and credibility of the mediator; and the broader political and international context. All these elements are crucial, determining the nature, quality, and effectiveness of the mediation and indicating why some efforts succeed while others fail (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009: 34). Where any of these is unfavourable, the prospects for successful mediation diminish considerably.

The parties in conflict

Bercovitch and Jackson emphasise that effective mediation is highly contingent on the legitimacy and internal cohesion of the conflicting parties. Mediation requires that each party be represented by actors with clear authority, unified political backing, and international recognition. Mediation has a better chance of success where the adversaries are recognised as the legitimate spokesmen for their parties. This insight helps to explain why mediation has historically struggled in settings such as Lebanon, Sudan, or Cyprus, where internal disunity or competing claims to authority undermined the credibility of negotiation.

While Ukraine and Russia both possess clearly defined state leadership, the question of legitimacy nonetheless re-emerges here through Russia’s repeated denial of Ukrainian sovereignty, its support for separatist proxies, and its characterisation of the Ukrainian government as illegitimate (BBC News 2023; Treisman 2022; EUvsDisinfo 2025). Earlier this year, the American presidency also used the language of dictatorship in reference to the Ukrainian government (Howard 2025; Sauer and Harding 2025). Such narratives, coming not only from one of the belligerents but also from one of the principal potential mediators, obscure the basic premise of mediation, namely that two recognised sovereign parties negotiate as equals, guided by an impartial third party.

The dispute

While the structure and identity of the actors involved are critical, a second and perhaps more decisive factor is the nature of the dispute itself. Where a conflict centres on issues perceived as existential, such as sovereignty, territorial integrity, or regime survival, mediation efforts are significantly less likely to succeed. These are what Zartman (2008) refers to as intractable issues and what others, including Ott (1972) and Randle (1973), have framed as non-negotiable interests. The war in Ukraine presents precisely the kind of high-stakes, zero-sum conflict that renders traditional mediation structurally ineffective. For Ukraine the war is not merely a geopolitical dispute but an existential struggle for national survival, political independence, and democratic self-determination. For Russia it is framed as a civilisational confrontation with the West and a strategic campaign to reassert dominance within a perceived sphere of influence.

Kleiboer (1996), in her work on understanding success and failure in international mediation, sets out the main elements of a dispute that determine outcomes. First, she identifies the problem of ripeness, the idea that conflicts pass through a life cycle and that mediation is more or less likely to be effective at particular phases. Some scholars suggest that mediation is more effective in later stages, when the costs of war have escalated, battlefield optimism has faded, and the parties reassess their goals. In Ukraine this threshold has arguably not been reached. Russia continues to perceive strategic value in prolonging the conflict, believing that Western unity may fray, that fatigue may increase, and that further territorial gains remain possible. Ukraine has benefited considerably from Western support and maintains hopes of reversing Russian advances.

Others argue that mediation is best pursued in the early stages, before violence escalates and positions harden. But this window never truly existed. The war of 2022 began with a full-scale invasion predicated on regime change, under the assumption of a rapid fall of Kyiv. Early maximalist objectives foreclosed early diplomatic options. Still others suggest that ripeness is not a matter of time but of key events, such as a mutually hurting stalemate or a radical shift in the balance of power that forces a strategic rethink. Neither has yet occurred. While Ukraine has mounted successful counteroffensives and even operated on Russian territory, and Russia has endured significant attrition and sanctions, neither side perceives itself as losing outright.

Second, Kleiboer draws attention to conflict intensity and its divergent logics. Contrary to simple assumptions, intensity can push parties towards or away from negotiation depending on their position. For Russia, as the stronger party, high intensity may reinforce optimism and a form of victory thinking, particularly where losing may mean not only the loss of the conflict but a threat to the leadership itself. For Ukraine the same intensity might encourage negotiation, especially as civilian costs and social exhaustion mount. But this assumes that negotiation offers a meaningful path forward. For Ukraine the prospect of territorial concession, neutrality, and the legitimation of annexation is not only politically unacceptable but strategically hazardous. Both logics therefore work against mediation.

Third, the intensity of violence cannot be separated from the substance of the dispute. The war concerns issues that are deeply divisive and difficult to settle: sovereignty, with incompatible territorial aims; ideological questions about the nature of political systems and core values; security questions concerning borders and territory; and questions of self-determination and nationhood. All of these make the war a paradigmatic case of a structurally resistant conflict, in which mediation is not merely difficult but may be fundamentally misaligned with the logic of the conflict itself.

The mediator

A third determinant is the identity and attributes of the mediator. While it is tempting to assume that any well-intentioned third party can play a constructive role, the literature shows that effective mediation depends on the interplay of three core factors: impartiality, leverage, and status (Kleiboer 1996).

Conventional wisdom holds that a mediator’s success depends on perceived impartiality, following a logic in which impartiality breeds confidence, confidence fosters acceptability, and acceptability increases the likelihood of success. Impartiality is less a matter of objective neutrality than of perception: the parties must believe that the mediator has no hidden agenda and is equally invested in a fair resolution. In Ukraine, very few mediators have met this threshold. The United States and the European Union are widely seen from the Russian side as partisan players rather than neutral brokers. Ukraine is equally suspicious of actors perceived as close to its adversary, such as China, which has maintained careful rhetorical neutrality while deepening economic ties with Moscow.

On the other hand, a degree of bias can be useful. A mediator with strong ties to one party, particularly the more powerful one, may be better able to persuade that actor to make concessions. This suggests that while the most consequential mediators, the United States and the European Union, have the capacity to influence Ukraine, they lack access to or trust with Moscow, rendering any influence over Russia practically non-existent.

A further key factor is leverage, understood as the mediator’s ability to shape the parties’ behaviour through incentive or pressure. Without leverage, even the most neutral mediator is little more than a facilitator; with it, a mediator can shift calculations and create meaningful costs and benefits attached to a settlement. The conflict in Ukraine reveals a dual paradox. The United States and the European Union possess considerable leverage, particularly over Ukraine, given that they provide the bulk of its military and economic support, but this leverage has proved politically fraught: any signal that the West is pressing Ukraine towards negotiation can be interpreted as abandonment, may embolden Russia, and may fracture Western unity.

On the Russian side, those same actors have very little leverage, since sanctions, isolation, and warrants issued by the International Criminal Court have closed off diplomatic channels and hardened resistance. Middle powers such as Brazil, India, Turkey, and South Africa have attempted to fill the gap, seeing it as an opportunity to increase their standing in a changing world order (Friedrich 2025). But their lack of military, economic, or institutional weight has made their proposals appear more symbolic than strategic.

Lastly, a mediator’s status shapes the ability to convene talks and to drive outcomes. High-status mediators have struggled with credibility, while low-status actors have struggled with access. The United Nations has repeatedly called for peace, but its credibility has been undermined by internal division and by paralysis in the Security Council. Religious and humanitarian actors such as the Holy See or the International Committee of the Red Cross enjoy moral authority but have not been entrusted with a political mandate. Middle powers such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey have hosted talks, but their standing is too ambiguous to convert diplomacy into firm commitments.

International context

Mediation efforts do not unfold in a vacuum; they are embedded in a broader international context. This includes the involvement of third parties and the effect of other global conflicts. As to the former, the war in Ukraine has been internationalised to a very high degree, with each involved actor pursuing its own interests and strategic calculations; these actors do not simply support or oppose mediation but often seek to steer its outcomes. The United States and the European Union have rhetorically endorsed peace while simultaneously intensifying military aid and deepening sanctions. Moscow, for its part, has used mediation initiatives from states of the Global South to advance a narrative of Western hypocrisy and to legitimise its own account of the conflict.

As to the latter, the war in Gaza that began in 2023 has affected mediation elsewhere by diverting international attention, political capital, and diplomatic capacity (Fischer 2023). It has hardened divisions between Western and non-Western states, exposed the selective application of international norms, and weakened the moral authority of the same actors who are prominent in Ukraine.

Prospects for constructive mediation

The failure of mediation in Ukraine does not imply that peace efforts should be abandoned, but rather that they must be rethought. Any future initiative must reckon with the structural constraints of the conflict. There is no quick remedy, but some strategic adjustments may improve the prospects for meaningful mediation.

Mediation cannot be forced where no basic readiness exists. At present neither party appears to regard the situation as unsustainable enough to warrant real concession. Ukraine, sustained by external support and by resistance morale, continues to prioritise territorial integrity; Russia, although facing attrition, shows no sign of internal collapse or strategic retreat. Yet this state of affairs will not persist indefinitely. Mediating actors must prepare now for a future moment of ripeness, through discreet channels of communication, unofficial diplomacy, and the careful cultivation of relationships with intermediaries who are perceived as neither partisan nor lacking in weight.

No single state or institution holds both the legitimacy and the leverage required to mediate this war effectively. One possible response is a multilateral mediation group, a consortium including regional powers from both camps, such as Turkey, India, Brazil, and China, paired with neutral international organisations such as the OSCE or an envoy appointed by the United Nations. This hybrid format would help to offset perceived bias while allowing each actor to bring a different form of influence, whether diplomatic, symbolic, or economic. While past attempts at such inclusive formats have faltered, a renewed attempt could succeed if accompanied by real confidence-building measures. The goal cannot be a comprehensive settlement overnight, but rather incremental progress, such as humanitarian agreements, local ceasefires, or mechanisms for the exchange of prisoners of war.

Rather than aiming immediately at a comprehensive peace agreement, mediation should for the present pursue limited but strategic goals that are easier to achieve and politically less costly for the parties. These might include demilitarised humanitarian corridors, nuclear safety arrangements, grain export frameworks, and monitoring mechanisms for violations of the law of armed conflict. Such issue-based mediation offers two advantages. First, it creates channels for communication and cooperation even amid continuing violence. Second, it can build the trust and the institutional scaffolding needed for more substantive negotiation. Small steps, if consistently successful, can shift the logic of the conflict away from zero-sum calculation.

SUMMARY *

The article’s analytical achievement is to show that the failure here is overdetermined rather than accidental. Applying an established framework, it finds that every one of the four conditions for successful mediation is absent at once: one party disputes the other’s standing to negotiate at all, the issues are of the kind that parties do not divide, no actor combines access to both sides with the capacity to impose a cost, and the wider system in which any process would sit is itself divided. The consequence the author draws is not despair but a reallocation of effort. If the conditions for a settlement cannot presently be produced, the useful work is to build the channels and relationships that a later moment will require, and meanwhile to pursue the humanitarian and technical arrangements that do not depend on those conditions.

CONCLUSION

The war in Ukraine has exposed the limits of international mediation in the face of entrenched geopolitical interests, high-stakes territorial disputes, and a global order marked by fragmentation and normative inconsistency. This article has sought, through theoretical insight, to clarify why mediation has struggled to gain traction. Ukraine is not merely a war between two states but one deeply embedded in the ideological and strategic rift between the West and a bloc of non-Western actors; mediation in such a context is not only about stopping bullets or drawing borders but about fundamental questions of global power, legitimacy, and security.

This should not lead to fatalism. The war should serve rather as a stress test for the theory and practice of mediation. It calls for more flexible, plural, and long-term approaches that recognise the complexity of modern conflicts. Ripeness cannot be imposed, but it can be anticipated and prepared for. Mediators may not be impartial, but they can still be effective if they bring influence, coordination, and creativity. The challenge is not to revive old models but to rethink diplomacy itself, so that it is more adaptive, more plural, and better equipped to navigate the fractured realities of contemporary war.

While a comprehensive and just peace may remain a distant prospect, serious diplomatic thinking must begin to consider what a minimally viable settlement could look like, one that does not reward aggression but recognises the strategic realities on the ground and the need to prevent prolonged devastation. Given the effective occupation of parts of eastern Ukraine, one scenario that has been discussed is a negotiated arrangement addressing the status of the occupied territories. This would require significant concessions from Ukraine, which, to be politically and strategically acceptable, would demand powerful counterbalancing guarantees from the international community.

For Kyiv, any territorial compromise, however limited, would be viable only if paired with long-term security and integration guarantees. Chief among these would be membership of the European Union, providing institutional, financial, and political anchoring for Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy. Membership of the Atlantic alliance, while more contentious, might be considered as a long-term objective, or at least a structured bilateral security guarantee negotiated with allies. Such arrangements would signal resolve, provide tangible deterrence against future incursion, and avoid the risk of a mere pause in hostilities of the kind that followed 2014.

The role of the international community is therefore not to impose a blueprint but to cultivate the political conditions under which compromise becomes possible. That entails a shift from reactive, fragmented diplomacy to sustained multilateral engagement that includes emerging actors who may lack leverage but offer legitimacy. Since mediators have found it difficult to reach ideal solutions, it is necessary to begin building a security architecture that can contain conflict, institutionalise restraint, and allow diplomacy to take root.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION *

The analytical framework is applied carefully and its most important implication deserves to be separated from the article’s closing proposals, because the two rest on different footings.

The framework establishes that the conditions for a negotiated settlement are absent. The proposals for issue-based mediation follow from this directly and are supported by what has actually worked: the grain initiative moved cargo out of Ukrainian ports for a year, prisoner exchanges have continued throughout, the agency responsible for nuclear safety has maintained a presence at Zaporizhzhia, and children have been returned through the mediation of a small number of states. None of these required either party to accept anything about the other’s claims, and each was negotiated by intermediaries whose usefulness lay precisely in having no position on the war. That is the model the author’s analysis supports, and it is being executed now.

The territorial proposals in the closing section stand differently, and one distinction would strengthen them considerably. There is a difference between recognising a territorial change in law and accepting it in fact while withholding recognition, and the second has a long history. The Baltic states were occupied for fifty years without Western recognition of the annexation, and the non-recognition preserved a claim that was eventually realised. Applied here, an arrangement that fixes a line of control without conceding sovereignty offers Ukraine something a recognised cession does not, namely the preservation of the claim, and offers Russia the practical control it holds, while requiring neither to say what its own politics forbid. The constitutional position reinforces this: the Ukrainian constitution reserves any alteration of territory to a national referendum, which means a cession is not within the gift of any negotiator, and a formula that avoids the question is not merely diplomatic tact but a legal necessity.

The security guarantee question is the harder one and the article is right to make everything turn on it. Ukraine has been given guarantees before, in the Budapest Memorandum, and the experience is precisely why assurances are now insufficient. The distinction that matters is between a guarantee that requires a decision at the moment of crisis and one that is automatic, and only the second deters, which is why membership of the alliance and the presence of forces on the ground are the forms that have been pressed for. Any arrangement that leaves the guarantor a choice will be read by both parties as leaving the guarantor a choice.

Two additions on the mediation analysis itself. The article treats leverage over Russia as absent, and the more precise statement is that it is held by parties who have not chosen to exercise it: the states purchasing Russian energy and supplying the components that sustain the war have influence that the sanctioning states do not, which is the strongest argument for the plural format the author proposes and also the reason it has not yet materialised. And the Istanbul discussions of spring 2022 deserve more weight than the article gives them, since they came closer to terms than anything since and are the clearest available evidence about what each side would accept when it believed it had to; whatever one concludes about why they ended, they establish that the positions are not fixed by nature.

Finally, one observation from this field. The article’s proposal that mediators prepare for a ripeness that has not yet arrived is the most practical thing in it and the hardest to fund, because it produces nothing visible. Channels are maintained by people who meet for years without result, and the value of that work becomes apparent only at the moment when someone needs to make a call and finds that a line exists. Every settlement examined in this journal has depended on such channels having been kept open by someone during the period when keeping them open looked pointless.

* Added by the WMO Editorial Team

REFERENCES

BBC News (2023) Ukraine War: President Putin Speech Fact-Checked. 21 February 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/64718139

Bercovitch, J., and R. Jackson (2009) Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

EUvsDisinfo (2025) The Kremlin’s Misuse of Nazism as a Weapon of Information Manipulation. 27 January 2025. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/the-kremlins-misuse-of-nazism-as-a-weapon-of-information-manipulation/

Fischer, S. (2023) Diplomacy in the Context of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Continuation of War by Other Means. German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin.

Friedrich, J. (2025) Outcome Neutral? The Limits of Third-Party Mediation in Ending the War Against Ukraine. Global Public Policy Institute, Berlin.

Howard, J. (2025) Trump Calls Zelensky a Dictator as He Hits Back at Disinformation Criticism. BBC News, 18 February 2025.

Kleiboer, M. (1996) Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(2), 360 to 389.

Ott, M. (1972) Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases. International Organization 26(4), 595 to 618.

Randle, R. (1973) The Origins of Peace: A Study of Peacemaking and the Structure of Peace Settlements. Free Press, New York.

Sauer, P., and L. Harding (2025) Trump Calls Zelenskyy a Dictator amid Fears of Irreconcilable Rift. The Guardian, 20 February 2025.

Treisman, R. (2022) Putin’s Claim of Fighting against Ukraine Neo-Nazis Distorts History, Scholars Say. NPR, 1 March 2022.

Zartman, I. W. (2008) Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice. Routledge, Abingdon.

Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team

Initiative on the Safe Transportation of Grain and Foodstuffs from Ukrainian Ports, Istanbul, 22 July 2022.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, 5 December 1994.

Constitution of Ukraine, 1996, Article 73 on the alteration of territory.

Minsk Protocol, 5 September 2014, and the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, 12 February 2015.

International Atomic Energy Agency, reports on nuclear safety and security in Ukraine, Vienna.

Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49(3), 379 to 414.

Zartman, I. W. (2001). The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8 to 18.

Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, professional standards and field manuals, Geneva.