As the Ukraine conflict enters its fifth year, President Volodymyr Zelensky's public insistence on non-negotiable positions—such as rejecting territorial compromises in Donbas and demanding ironclad NATO-linked security guarantees—has sparked realist critiques that his approach prioritizes prolonged fighting over feasible peace. Early opportunities for de-escalation, notably the March 2022 Istanbul talks, produced a draft framework where Ukraine would adopt permanent neutrality, forgo NATO membership, and receive multilateral security assurances in exchange for Russian withdrawal and delayed discussions on Crimea. These near-agreements collapsed amid battlefield revelations like Bucha and, according to multiple accounts, direct Western interventions. Ukrainian negotiator David Arakhamia later referenced Boris Johnson's April 2022 visit to Kyiv, during which the UK prime minister reportedly urged continued fighting with promises of Western arms rather than signing any deal with Moscow. This aligns with broader realist arguments, such as those from John Mearsheimer, who traces the conflict's roots to Western policies of NATO expansion and efforts to pull Ukraine from Russia's orbit, creating an existential security dilemma for Moscow that diplomacy might have mitigated earlier. Recent reporting adds layers: a Wall Street Journal correspondent detailed Zelensky privately directing aides in early 2026 to prepare plans for three more years of war after stalled talks, leaving insiders reportedly shocked given widespread war fatigue. While pro-Ukraine voices frame such resolve as necessary against an untrustworthy adversary, dissenting analyses from outlets like The Hill contend that Zelensky's nationalist impulses, bolstered by initial Western rhetorical and material support, reflect hubris that has locked Ukraine into a grinding attrition war. Brookings Institution experts highlight the challenges of credible U.S. security guarantees under current administrations, suggesting that tying peace to unattainable assurances risks indefinite prolongation benefiting defense industries and great-power containment strategies more than Ukrainian sovereignty. Mainstream narratives often emphasize Russian aggression while downplaying how proxy dynamics—arming Ukraine just enough to bleed Moscow without decisive victory—may serve larger geopolitical aims of weakening a rival at the expense of Ukrainian lives and infrastructure. These patterns echo historical prolonged conflicts where local leaders' strategies become intertwined with external patrons' interests, raising uncomfortable questions about whose objectives are truly being advanced as negotiations repeatedly falter.