By all appearances, the Ukraine war is advancing along a deeply unsettling trajectory, one where the fear of escalation is no longer escalating. Paradoxically, this is precisely what makes the situation so dangerous. In wars structurally prone to spirals of violence, when parties no longer fear escalation, it is often because they have already accepted its costs. The consequences of what this war might become are enormous, yet neither side appears genuinely deterred from its course.
Deterrence and Deadlock
Russia’s strategy rests on maximalist deterrence: not merely stopping attacks through denial but by threatening disproportionate punishment. Both Russia and Ukraine pursue military objectives that prevent the other from achieving outright denial, locking each into a cycle of escalation. Punishment-based deterrence now blurs the lines between defence and coercion.
This dynamic was vividly evident in the most recent Istanbul talks. Neither side has altered its core objectives. Instead, each seeks to impose costs to strengthen its negotiating hand. Punishment is now both a deterrent and a coercive instrument, a dual function that prolongs the conflict and elevates the risks for all involved.
Tactical Success
Ukraine’s recent drone strike deep into Russian territory is emblematic of its evolving asymmetric warfare tactics. As part of the “Spider’s Web” operation, Ukraine’s SBU security service launched 17 drones, hitting 34% of Russia’s strategic cruise missile carriers. While operationally impressive, the strike remains a tactical success—much like previous operations against the Black Sea Fleet and Russian air bases. These actions reveal Moscow’s intelligence vulnerabilities and erode its operational capabilities, yet they have not fundamentally altered the broader strategic balance. Russia remains entrenched, confident in a war of attrition favouring its long game.
“Spider’s Web” is unlikely to force Moscow to the negotiating table if, indeed, that was Kyiv’s intent. The operation is merely another link in a chain of actions that has yet to produce a decisive breakthrough. Russia has absorbed worse and responded with “message-laden” punitive strikes of its own.
Shifting Lines, Unchanged Stakes
Recent months have seen a surge in high-impact operations: Ukraine’s deep strikes into Russian territory and Russia’s intensified assaults on Ukrainian infrastructure. Both sides have leveraged new technologies—long-range drones, advanced air defences, and electronic warfare—yet neither has achieved a decisive shift on the battlefield. Internationally, the landscape is also evolving. The Istanbul talks signalled a rare moment of direct engagement, coinciding with renewed calls from global actors for de-escalation. Yet, despite mounting civilian costs and growing pressure from both allies and adversaries, the core objectives of Moscow and Kyiv remain unchanged. The conflict has become a test of endurance, with diplomacy offering only incremental relief from a grinding war whose end remains elusive.
Ukraine’s Dilemma: Between Western Vacillation and Russian Resolve
Ukraine finds itself caught between diminishing Western enthusiasm and enduring Russian resolve. Without sustained Western support, it cannot maintain its current posture. But that support is no longer unconditional nor uniformly distributed. Kyiv must carefully navigate between European caution and American weariness while attempting to exploit Russia’s aversion to total war. For Ukrainians, this translates into a continued daily struggle—one that tests endurance, societal cohesion, and morale. These realities are often overlooked amid strategic discourse.
The Istanbul Process: A Glimmer of Possibility
In this context, Türkiye’s revival of the Istanbul diplomatic track warrants serious attention. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent visits to both Moscow and Kyiv—alongside renewed Russian references to the “Istanbul Process”—are not merely symbolic. They show that dialogue, despite rhetoric, has never vanished. Türkiye is regarded as a trusted interlocutor: geographically proximate, strategically neutral, and historically positioned as a bridge between adversaries. Its diplomatic engagement stems not only from principle but also from pragmatism; Ankara has no interest in war on its doorstep.
The Istanbul meetings show that direct communication remains feasible, even amid ongoing hostilities. Confidence-building measures—such as prisoner exchanges, humanitarian corridors, and local ceasefires—may appear modest, but their significance is profound. In a conflict where trust has evaporated, each gesture of good faith matters. These actions offer civilians much-needed reprieve and preserve a channel for future compromise.
The Wisdom to End It
This war is fought with maximalist aims but without maximalist means. Russia does not wish to escalate to nuclear use. Ukraine cannot prevail without external support. The West fears further escalation. This produces a form of unstable equilibrium—a war too dangerous to escalate, too unsettled to conclude.
The Istanbul process will not bring peace overnight. But it signals a shift from total confrontation to gradual communication. It is a step towards the possibility of resolution—not because conditions are ripe, but because waiting for ideal conditions may be tantamount to waiting forever. In such moments, diplomacy becomes not just a path but a moral responsibility. Peace, when it comes, will not be perfect. However, ending a war is not a matter of perfection—it is a matter of courage. It takes bravery to take the first, often uncertain steps in the arduous journey toward peace. As General de Gaulle once invoked, it is the “paix des braves”—the peace of the brave—that ultimately holds the promise of a better future.
