There has been some interest in peace talks between Russia and Ukraine with the U.S. as an interested partner of Ukraine since we are bankrolling their war. George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures writes about peace talks generally, and what's involved in these particular circumstances. His conclusion will give you a flavor of his views.
It is this mutual fear of failure that drives each to a negotiated settlement, however contemptible and belligerent that process will be. The opening gut check is followed by an emerging reality of how much you can play and how much your enemy can play, two variables that are considered every day by leaders and soldiers alike. Unthinkable concessions then become thinkable. The hazier this is, the more each side will be frightened that they will suddenly break.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants an independent Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wants to be president of Russia, and the U.S. wants to end the war without American casualties. None is as confident as he appears.
I'd add that the U.S. also doesn't want to throw billions at the problem indefinitely. If I had to guess, I'd predict that if a truce is achieved, Russia will get to keep Crimea and have to give up the rest. Whether Russia's hawks will allow Putin to survive such a deal, in office or out, is unclear.
----------
Someday I may write an essay on the problems faced by nations which were once dominant forces in the world but are that no longer. I might call it the "weren't you formerly someone important?" issue.
Major players in such a discussion would be Russia, Islam, France, and Britain, each formerly dominant. When enough time passes, as it seems to have with Italy (Rome), Spain, and Portugal, the angst appears to become attenuated.
