Donald Trump made no secret of the fact that one of his top priorities upon resuming office would be bringing the conflict in Ukraine to an immediate end, and his administration has now implicitly signalled that a negotiated settlement is the aim of the United States.
This goes against three years of Western policy, which basically took the Ukrainian line that the war would end either with the complete destruction of the Ukrainian state, or by Ukraine re-taking all the territory it has lost to Russia, including the Crimea, annexed in 2014.
The Trump administration has finally conceded that Ukraine taking back the Crimea by force of arms is and always has been a fantasy.
Although it is still early days, the signs are that any deal will involve Russia holding on to the territorial gains it has made at Ukrainian expense since the "Special Military Operation" began in early 2022.
If peace is made on such terms, can we really call Vladimir Putin a "peacemaker". No doubt it will be galling for those who understandably blame Putin for the conflict, to see him lauded as a peacemaker.
It's worth remembering though, that from Putin's point of view, he did not start this conflict. According to Putin, the conflict began in 2014 when Western powers backed a coup against the pro-Russian, but democratically elected government of Ukraine. It's easy to forget, but since that time conflict has been ongoing in the Donbas region.
In this sense the 2022 "full scale invasion" was not a declaration of war, but a major escalation of a pre-existing conflict.
Add into this mix Putin's claims that the West has consistently broken promises not to expand NATO to the east and, in his mind, threaten Russia. Whether we feel the same or not, Putin has grievances that he feels are legitimate and have been consistently ignored.
This is not to say that Russia's actions in Ukraine since 2022 are justified, but it is to say that the current situation may have been avoided if both sides of the conflict were able to make an attempt to understand each other's concerns and interests, rather than trying to gobble up as much of the world into their "sphere of interest" as possible.
In this sense, bringing about international peace may not be so different from bringing about peace between individuals. Both parties need to be willing to listen to the other, and occasionally make compromises, rather than insisting that they should and will get everything they want.
There is no doubt that this becomes harder if thousands of people have been killed or maimed for a particular cause. Compromise can seem like a betrayal of those who died for the cause. Ultimately there comes a point though when every person and every nation must ask itself if the sacrifices they are making are worth the potential outcomes.
