The United States should abandon efforts to secure a short-term ceasefire in Ukraine and instead focus on negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement in 2027, according to Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the Defense Priorities think tank.

In an article for The American Conservative, Kavanagh argued that Ukraine’s military and economic position has deteriorated significantly, while expectations in Kiev and Western capitals of reversing the course of the war have failed to materialize.

Despite occasional Ukrainian battlefield successes and strikes against Russian oil refineries, Moscow continues to hold the strategic advantage, she maintained.

Ukraine is also struggling with shortages of air defense equipment and financial resources. Russian attacks on energy facilities, transport networks and ports have placed additional pressure on the country’s economy, while disruptions to maritime exports have created further difficulties.

According to Kavanagh, Western policymakers overestimated Ukraine’s prospects during the summer, interpreting temporary battlefield developments as evidence of a lasting shift in momentum.

This assessment encouraged Washington and its allies to delay diplomatic efforts in the hope that Kiev would eventually negotiate from a stronger position.

The analyst believes that even a limited ceasefire has now become increasingly difficult to achieve. Russia has little incentive to surrender its military advantages ahead of winter, making proposals for an energy truce or renewed Black Sea shipping arrangements unlikely to succeed.

However, Kavanagh suggested that conditions for meaningful negotiations could improve in 2027.

She identified several potential factors, including mounting economic pressures on Russia, the reduced strategic impact of attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure after winter and Moscow’s possible desire to avoid another large-scale mobilization.

The approaching 2028 US presidential election could also create an incentive for Russia to negotiate with the Trump administration before Washington’s ability to offer credible long-term commitments becomes more uncertain.

To prepare for a possible settlement, Kavanagh outlined five measures for the United States.

First, Washington should begin serious discussions with Moscow and NATO allies about legally and politically credible guarantees against further NATO expansion.

Second, US officials should make clear to Ukraine’s leadership that continuing the war is unlikely to improve its negotiating position.

Kavanagh proposed making future American financial and military assistance conditional on Kiev’s willingness to reach a peace agreement. If Ukraine refuses the concessions required for a settlement, Washington should be prepared to end intelligence sharing and other forms of support.

Third, the United States should work with European partners to develop a concrete roadmap for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, which Kavanagh considers the most realistic long-term security arrangement available to Kiev.

Fourth, Washington should press European governments to reopen communication channels with Russia to reduce military tensions, particularly in the Baltic Sea and along NATO’s borders.

Finally, the White House should establish a dedicated negotiating team composed of military officials, diplomats and technical experts capable of addressing the complex details of a future agreement.

Kavanagh acknowledged that these steps would not guarantee peace in 2027.

Negotiators would still need to resolve disputes over ceasefire monitoring, territorial arrangements, Ukraine’s nonaligned status, the size and armament of its military, prisoner exchanges and protections for linguistic and religious rights.

Nevertheless, she argued that Washington should use the coming months to prepare for comprehensive negotiations rather than pursue temporary ceasefires that are unlikely to hold under current conditions.