It is not the only way to end a war.
The notion that every war must eventually end through negotiations is frequently repeated, especially in the context of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Advocates of this view often assert that Ukraine and its Western allies will need to make concessions to Russia in order to bring the war to a close. However, this assumption is flawed. While negotiations are one way wars can end, they are far from the only option.
History offers numerous examples of wars concluding without formal negotiations. In 1945, both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, ending World War II without the need for a negotiated peace settlement. Similarly, Italy’s regime change in 1943 marked the end of its role in the war without any direct negotiations with the Axis powers. Another example is the Korean War, which ended in a ceasefire in 1953. Although this required some negotiation, it did not resolve the underlying tensions, leaving the conflict essentially unresolved.
Even when wars do involve negotiations, they often fail to deliver lasting peace. In many cases, talks end in stalemate or collapse, leaving the conflict to persist through other means. Thus, while negotiations are one possible way for wars to end, they are by no means a guaranteed or universal solution.
The myth of negotiated peace overlooks the complexity of conflict resolution and fails to account for the possibility of other outcomes, including military victories, surrenders, or protracted standoffs. The idea that wars always end with a negotiated settlement should therefore be critically examined, especially in the case of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
