Dr. Bryan Brulotte is Chairman of Sterling-Trust, a Canadian private equity firm. He brings more than four decades of leadership experience spanning the military, private, and public sectors.Vladimir Putin is talking about peace. Russian forces, meanwhile, continue to attack Ukraine. That contradiction should shape how the West approaches the latest diplomatic efforts to end the war. We should welcome serious negotiations, but we should not mistake Putin’s willingness to talk for a willingness to abandon his objectives.After more than four years of war, enormous casualties, and destruction, there is nothing weak about seeking peace. Every responsible government should want an end to the killing, and President Donald Trump is right to test whether negotiations can bring one about. American envoys have been travelling between Moscow and Kyiv, and the Kremlin has publicly left the door open to further talks. We should hope those efforts succeed, while remaining clear-eyed about what Russia is actually offering.So far, there has been no breakthrough, and the fundamental positions of Russia and Ukraine remain far apart. More importantly, Putin has given little indication that his strategic objectives have changed. Russia continues to demand territory it claims as its own and insists upon conditions that would significantly restrict Ukraine’s future security arrangements. In Donetsk alone, Ukraine still controls roughly 15% to 20% of the territory claimed by Moscow despite years of costly Russian offensives.That tells us something important about the negotiations now taking place. Putin is effectively asking at the negotiating table for territory his army has been unable to conquer on the battlefield. Diplomacy and military power have always been connected, and the stronger your position on the battlefield, the stronger your position at the negotiating table. Putin understands this very well, and the West needs to understand it too..Russia continues to fight while it talks. Moscow is pressing its offensive in eastern Ukraine while continuing missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Russian forces have paid an extraordinary price for incremental territorial gains, but Putin appears willing to continue paying that price if he believes time is on his side. Talking about peace while continuing offensive operations is hardly evidence that Moscow has abandoned its objectives.None of this means negotiations are pointless. It means the West should enter them with its eyes open and remember that Putin has used diplomacy tactically before. The Minsk agreements following Russia’s intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014 reduced the intensity of fighting at various points but did not produce a durable settlement. Russia ultimately launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.The lesson is not that diplomacy is useless. The lesson is that an agreement that does not alter an aggressor’s strategic calculation may simply postpone the next war. A ceasefire that merely gives Russia time to rearm would not constitute a durable peace. It would be an intermission before another war, potentially fought on terms more favourable to Moscow.The measure of any agreement should therefore be not simply whether it stops this war, but whether it makes the next one less likely. A ceasefire could save thousands of lives and create the opportunity for serious negotiations, which makes it worth pursuing. But freezing the battlefield while leaving Ukraine vulnerable could allow Russia to consolidate its gains, rebuild depleted formations, and replenish ammunition stocks. That is why credible deterrence must be part of any lasting settlement..That requires military strength. Western governments have sometimes treated diplomacy and military assistance as competing ideas when, properly understood, they reinforce one another. Ukraine is more likely to obtain acceptable terms when Moscow believes continued war will be costly and unlikely to produce substantially better results. If Putin instead concludes that Western governments are becoming impatient and time is working in Russia’s favour, his incentive to compromise decreases.The numbers demonstrate that the West has the resources to change that calculation. European defence spending now stands at approximately $550 billion USD annually, roughly three times Russia’s level, yet European military assistance to Ukraine amounted to about €40 billion in 2025, equal to only about 6% of European defence spending. The imbalance is extraordinary. The problem is not that Europe lacks resources, but whether it has the political will and industrial capacity to turn those resources into usable military power.President Trump has an opportunity to approach this from a position of leverage. Washington should continue talking to Moscow, explore ceasefires and prisoner exchanges, and determine whether Putin is genuinely prepared to compromise. Canada and Europe should support serious American efforts to find a negotiated settlement. But negotiations should be accompanied by an equally clear message that Russia cannot improve its position simply by prolonging the war.That means ensuring Ukraine has the ammunition, air defence, drones, and other capabilities required to defend itself. It also means strengthening NATO’s eastern flank and rebuilding Western defence-industrial capacity after decades of underinvestment. The message to Moscow should be straightforward: time will not automatically work in Russia’s favour. The purpose is not to prolong the war, but to give Putin a reason to end it..Canada cannot decide the outcome of this war, but neither are we irrelevant. We can produce more ammunition, expand defence production, strengthen NATO, and finally treat military procurement with the urgency the international security environment demands. We can also meet the defence commitments we have made to our allies rather than continually postponing difficult decisions. Diplomacy backed by promises is easily ignored; diplomacy backed by military capacity commands attention.There is also a broader principle at stake. Russia invaded a sovereign neighbour and attempted to change internationally recognized borders by force. Any eventual settlement will involve difficult compromises, as settlements after long wars almost always do, and Ukrainians themselves will ultimately have to decide what terms they are prepared to accept. But the final agreement cannot send the message that aggression is inexpensive and territorial conquest is rewarded without consequence.China is watching what happens in Ukraine, as are Iran and North Korea. So are smaller countries whose security depends upon credible alliances and the principle that borders cannot simply be redrawn by military force. The outcome will therefore matter far beyond Ukraine because other governments will draw conclusions about Western power, endurance, and political will. A durable settlement would demonstrate that aggression carries lasting costs, while a weak one could teach precisely the opposite lesson.The West therefore needs flexibility and resolve at the same time. Talking to Putin is not appeasement, because diplomacy requires speaking with governments we distrust, particularly when the alternative is continued war. But we must also possess the resolve to reject an agreement that merely postpones the conflict. Peace cannot simply mean the absence of shooting on the day an agreement is signed.The West should pursue peace seriously because wars ultimately end through victory, negotiation, or exhaustion. But we should not confuse a pause in the fighting with a durable settlement, or Putin’s willingness to talk with a willingness to abandon his objectives. A false peace that allows Russia to regroup would only postpone the danger. Real peace will require diplomacy, but diplomacy backed by strength.Dr. Bryan Brulotte is Chairman of Sterling-Trust, a Canadian private equity firm. He brings more than four decades of leadership experience spanning the military, private, and public sectors.
