The conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and separatist uprisings in Luhansk and Donbass, escalated into a full-scale invasion by Russia in February 2022. This war has already caused massive loss of life, infrastructure damage and worsened socio-economic conditions in both countries, with significant global geopolitical implications.

The Russo-Ukrainian war requires negotiations to end the conflict. International players, including major global powers, are heavily invested in the outcome, influencing both countries’ strategic considerations. This research examines negotiation options using a structured framework based on negotiation theories by Robert Mnookin and Gabriella Blum, analyzing interests, alternatives, potential outcomes, implementation likelihood, and associated costs.

• Positions and Prioritized Interests: Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, recognition of its pre-2014 borders, and compensation for war damages. Russia seeks Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of Crimea, and the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. External players like the U.S., EU, China, and the Global South have their own strategic interests, impacting the negotiation dynamics.
• Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA): Ukraine’s alternatives include continued military engagement and leveraging international support. Russia’s alternatives involve consolidating control over occupied territories and using economic leverage. Both face significant risks and limitations, influenced by the strategic interests of external players.
• Potential Gains and Losses from a Negotiated Agreement: Ukraine could gain from ceasing hostilities, territorial recovery, economic recovery, and humanitarian relief but might lose political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia could benefit from lifting sanctions, securing territorial claims, and reducing military expenditures but risks perceived weakness and unfulfilled broader geopolitical aims. The U.S., EU, China, and Global South also have significant potential gains and losses, making negotiations strategically important.
• Likelihood of Agreement Implementation: Ukraine has a high likelihood of implementing an agreement due to strong motivations and Western support but faces internal challenges. Russia’s likelihood is moderate, with motivations tempered by a history of non-compliance and domestic hardliners. The U.S., EU, and China show high likelihoods due to strategic interests, while the Global South has a moderate likelihood influenced by economic dependencies and neutrality pressures. An overall assessment of the implementation likelihood is, however, positive once the negotiations commence.
• Costs of Negotiations: Ukraine and Russia face high costs, including political, financial, and humanitarian dimensions. The U.S. and EU also face substantial costs but find them acceptable given their strategic interests. China’s costs are moderate and manageable, while the Global South faces high economic and humanitarian costs.
• Zone of Potential Agreement (ZOPA): Finding common ground requires identifying concessions without compromising core interests of the parties. Potential ZOPA elements include ceasefires, international peacekeeping, economic aid, and long-term negotiation frameworks balancing the interests of Ukraine, Russia, and external powers.
• Strategic Stalemate and the Role of External Powers: Currently, neither side is ready to compromise, creating a strategic stalemate. External mediation by global powers, particularly the U.S. and China, is essential for meaningful negotiations. Historical precedents like Korea and Germany provide useful frameworks for potential resolutions.
• Scenarios: Potential scenarios include a Korean-style ceasefire, a German-style comprehensive peace plan, a hybrid approach, continued stalemate, or a comprehensive peace plan mediated by global powers with the latter being the most plausible.