Can the world afford to miss latest US move to end Ukraine war?

There are moments in global affairs when the trajectory of history pauses just long enough for diplomacy to intervene. The latest US-driven effort to broker an end to the war in Ukraine may well be one of those rare moments. After more than 1,370 days of bloodshed, displacement, economic upheaval and escalating geopolitical risk, a faint ray of hope has emerged - fragile, fraught and fiercely contested, but unmistakable.

Last week, the Trump administration quietly circulated a 28-point proposal to both Kyiv and Moscow. What came next was surprising: neither side rejected it outright. Russia called it a "potential basis for negotiations." Ukraine signalled that, with revisions, the proposal could be workable. And on Sunday, representatives from both nations arrived in Geneva for the first serious talks in months, convened under U.S. auspices.

This moment did not materialise by accident. Since returning to power, President Donald Trump has made ending the Ukraine war a top diplomatic priority, hosting several rounds of back-channel consultations, most of which stalled midway. Yet the newest initiative has moved further and faster than previous ones, largely because the battlefield reality - and the global economic situation - is pressing all parties toward a deal.

The world, and especially countries like Bangladesh that have already endured the double shock of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war, desperately needs a geopolitical ceasefire. The surge in commodity prices, energy instability, disrupted grain exports and volatile financial markets have collectively strained economies that were barely recovering from the pandemic's devastation. For developing countries, there is no path to sustainable recovery without a reduction in geopolitical conflict.

The 28-point U.S. proposal - portions of which have been leaked - is not a triumph for either side. It is designed as a compromise that will make many Ukrainians uneasy and many Russians dissatisfied. That, perhaps, is why it has a chance.

According to reports cited by media, the draft envisions Ukrainian troop withdrawal from parts of eastern Donetsk now under Kyiv's control, effectively affirming Russia's de facto control over Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea - regions that Moscow now considers non-negotiable. It also suggests freezing the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia along their current positions, even though both territories remain partially occupied.

Such concessions would be bitter for Kyiv. But the proposal also demands painful sacrifices from Moscow. Russia would be "reintegrated into the global economy," but only through a complex and staged lifting of sanctions. It would be invited to rejoin the G7, forming a new G8 - a symbolic reversal of its pariah status. Yet it would also be expected to pledge not to invade neighbouring countries again, an assurance Moscow has resisted making.

The most controversial element for Kyiv is likely the limitation on Ukraine's armed forces - capping personnel at 600,000 down from nearly 880,000 today - and the requirement that Ukraine abandon its NATO membership aspirations. In exchange, the U.S. promises "reliable security guarantees," though the nature of those guarantees remains murky.

This ambiguity is both deliberate and dangerous. Ukraine has long argued that without NATO membership or iron-clad security assurances, any agreement with Russia risks being a temporary pause before the next invasion. Moscow, for its part, has demanded precisely such restrictions as proof that Ukraine will not become a forward operating post for Western military power.

The contours of the deal thus reflect a geopolitical trade-off: a reduced Ukrainian military, a frozen conflict line, Russian territorial gains, Western economic reintegration of Moscow - all balanced by a U.S.-backed security framework intended to deter future aggression.

It is not  perfect. But it may be the best chance available.

To understand why, one must confront the evolving battlefield reality. Russia now controls roughly 20 per cent of Ukraine's territory. Its forces, despite suffering heavy casualties, have made incremental gains across eastern Ukraine. Moscow has demonstrated that it is willing to expend considerable lives and resources to secure the Donbas and maintain control of occupied territories. Ukraine's counteroffensives, once emboldened by Western support, have slowed due to ammunition shortages, manpower constraints and growing political fatigue in Washington and European capitals.

President Volodymyr Zelensky knows this. His country's survival has depended on U.S. aid, and without it the military balance may tilt decisively toward Moscow. Trump's ultimatum - urging Kyiv to accept the proposal before Thursday - was blunt, but it reflects the shifting strategic environment. Ukraine's battlefield leverage is diminishing, not expanding, and the promise of indefinite Western support is weakening.

Yet Russia, too, faces limits. Its economy, though resilient under sanctions, is stretched. Its demographic losses are mounting. A prolonged war risks further international isolation and deepening dependence on China. President Vladimir Putin may calculate that a negotiated settlement granting him control over key territories - and restoring Russia's place in global economic institutions - is preferable to an endless, costly conflict.

Still, optimism must be tempered. The gaps between the parties remain wide. Ukraine will resist any plan that formalises Russian land seizures. Russia will reject any demand that includes full withdrawal. Western governments remain split over the scope of sanctions relief. And Trump's approach - transactional, unpredictable - could fracture the diplomatic consensus needed to enforce any agreement.

Yet there is a deeper truth: the world cannot afford another decade of this war. The economic repercussions have been global, persistent and profound. Every month the conflict continues, food prices surge, supply chains fray, energy markets destabilise, and fragile economies face new strains. For countries like Bangladesh, still grappling with pandemic recovery, the war is an imported catastrophe.

The global economy cannot recover without geopolitical stability. And geopolitical stability cannot be restored unless the war in Ukraine - the largest European conflict since 1945 - is brought to an end.

That means compromise. It means concessions. And it means accepting a peace that will leave bruises on all sides.

The United States, which has shaped the battlefield by supplying weapons and financing Ukraine's defence, now seeks to shape the peace. But the responsibility does not lie with Washington alone. Europe must engage more fully, Ukraine must weigh its long-term survival against short-term losses, and Russia must choose between reintegration and isolation.

The alternative is a grinding, endless conflict that will claim tens of thousands more lives, deepen global economic pain, and entrench a dangerous militarised standoff in the heart of Europe.

Peace requires courage - and not just on the battlefield. It requires political courage, moral courage and strategic imagination. As negotiations continue in Geneva, both Kyiv and Moscow must decide whether they can accept an imperfect settlement for the sake of their own people and the stability of the world.

History rarely offers second chances. This may be one. Let us hope the parties involved do not squander it - because the world cannot bear the cost of failure.

mirmostafiz@yahoo.com