By Vlad Green, Op-Ed
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says progress in U.S.-led peace talks is “quite solid.” A U.S. special envoy speaking from Miami echoed that assessment, saying meaningful progress has been made. Even the Russian envoy acknowledged the talks were “constructive.”
When all sides publicly agree that negotiations are moving forward, the obvious question must be asked: what are they waiting for?
Peace talks are not meant to be endless diplomatic rituals or public-relations exercises. Their purpose is simple and urgent: to stop the killing. Every day without a signed agreement means more Ukrainian civilians dead, more Russian soldiers killed and more cities destroyed, more families displaced, and greater instability spilling across Europe and the world.
Supporters of delay argue that caution is necessary — that a rushed agreement could collapse, embolden aggression, or prove politically costly. That concern is understandable. But caution has already been exercised for years. At this point, delay is no longer prudence; it is paralysis. And paralysis, in wartime, has consequences measured in human lives.
No peace deal is ever perfect. Wars rarely end with clean victories or total satisfaction. They end when leaders decide that continuing the war is more dangerous than accepting compromise. History is unforgiving to those who mistake endless negotiation for leadership.
Meanwhile, the costs continue to mount. Ukraine’s cities bleed. Europe lives under constant security anxiety. Global food and energy markets remain volatile. The credibility of international diplomacy erodes each time progress is acknowledged — then ignored.
If the framework is “quite solid,” then leaders must act. Washington must push decisively, not cautiously. Kyiv must seize the moment to secure its people’s future. Moscow must prove that its words about “constructive” talks mean something beyond delay tactics.
Signing a deal does not mean surrender. It means choosing life over destruction, stability over chaos, and responsibility over political fear. It means understanding that leadership is tested not by how long one negotiates, but by when one acts.
History will not remember how many meetings were held, how many envoys traveled, or how many statements were issued. It will remember whether peace was within reach — and whether leaders had the courage to take it.
The groundwork exists.
The urgency is undeniable.
The cost of delay is unbearable.
So once again, the question remains: what are we waiting for?