Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died on both sides. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, scattered across Europe. Entire regions ravaged by war lie in ruins. Ukraine’s economy is effectively on life support, dependent on foreign aid. Russia, too, faces deep losses and isolation. And yet, the war continues with only a barely flickering flame lighting up a tortuous path towards peace.

That flickering light is primarily due to the forceful actions of a new ‘peace broker’ in town, US President Trump, who is now trying to twist the arms of both sides to broker a ceasefire deal and bring the warring parties around the same table. That’s not easy! The challenge is not that peace is impossible in itself. It’s that even the possibility of peace has gradually been buried beneath the rubble of hardened ideologies, pain, losses, raw emotions, and distrust expressed in mutually exclusive narratives. The real tragedy may not just be the terrible loss of lives and territory but also the loss of the ability to see the other side as anything else than mortal enemies and hence to be unable to imagine peace with them as even a remote possibility.

Indeed, how can you make peace with somebody you consider evil?

Narratives Bubbles: The Stories We Tell to Make Sense of Chaos and Pull people in the ‘Right’ Direction

In every conflict, narratives are forged to make a complex and often ambiguous world more understandable to the masses. Carefully crafted narratives simplify these complex political risk issues and dynamics into emotionally charged, hence easily absorbed stories. They often assign binary roles: victims and villains, defenders and aggressors. There is often a hero in the story who comes to save the day. Narratives are used to mobilize populations, justify policy decisions, and consolidate internal unity behind one flag. Some say they are effectively used to manipulate opinions based on emotions while switching off our ability for critical thinking. That is where the risk and problem lie.

Indeed, over time, as these narratives are repeated endlessly, they harden. They become more than just a way to interpret events; they become what people believe in, essentially their identity and their unconscious way of reconstructing reality. And once a narrative becomes a deeply rooted identity, it can resist all contradictions, no matter how strong the challenge. It simply builds impenetrable walls where nothing unapproved can go through.

Each side become trapped in their own bubbles where they are always righteous, and the other side is always wrong. They cannot see anything else. As a result, every attempt at diplomacy feels like a surrender, every effort at understanding and showing empathy is painted as betrayal. This is where we reach a point of no return.

What are the Dominant Narrative Bubbles in the Ukraine Conflict?

To understand why peace is so elusive, we must first understand the narrative ecosystems that shape each party’s worldview. These narratives are not merely propaganda; they are deeply internalized, emotionally resonant mindset frameworks through which reality is filtered.

The Western Narrative Bubble:

• The war is seen as a clearcut black-and-white struggle between democracy and autocracy.
• Putin is portrayed as an autocratic madman bent on rebuilding the Russian empire at all costs.
• Ukraine is presented as a democracy bravely defending its sovereignty against unprovoked aggression from a tyranny that is threatening the whole of Europe, and hence the West must support it at all costs.
• NATO is described as a purely defensive alliance, and its expansion is only a result of sovereign nations choosing their own path to safety and freedom.

This narrative is designed to resonate strongly with Western democratic values, but it oversimplifies a complex and ambiguous geopolitical conflict into a one-sided moral crusade, leaving little room to explore Russian perspectives on security concerns or historical context.

The Russian Narrative Bubble:

• Russia sees itself as defending its vital cultural and national security interests from Western encroachment and NATO expansion.
• The conflict is framed as a reluctant humanitarian intervention to protect Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine suffering from repression by Ukrainian central government.
• The perception is that the West and NATO have repeatedly betrayed past post Cold War promises and are using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia and even to threaten its survival.
• Ukraine is depicted as a failed and corrupt state manipulated by Western powers.

This narrative taps into Russia historical trauma, fears of encirclement, and a profound desire to reclaim a respected global position after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But it downplays or denies the agency and rights of Ukraine as a sovereign nation and justifies aggression under the guise of defence.

The Ukrainian Narrative bubble:

• Ukraine is portrayed as a sovereign nation fighting for its survival, identity, and the right to choose its own path.
• Russia is seen as the unprovoked aggressor with long-standing imperial ambitions that seek to destroy Ukraine.
• NATO and the EU are seen as essential partners in the fight for a democratic future even if they not always perceived to be as very reliable.
• Ukrainian resilience in the war is celebrated as heroic and emblematic of broader democratic values 
• Ukraine is hailed as the frontline battleground protecting the whole of Europe against Russian Tyranny and its expansion ambition.

Ukraine frames itself as both victim and hero in a struggle for freedom and national survival. This narrative has helped unite the country under extraordinary stressful and difficult circumstances, but it also risks turning every possible negotiated compromise into a betrayal, thereby dramatically narrowing the space for diplomatic solutions.

While each of these narratives contains partial truths, they also reflect numerous exagerations, distortions and emotional framing. Hence, none of the narratives tell you the whole and reliable story. On the contrary, they have all evolved within ideological bubbles that resist contradiction by amplifying emotional and perception biases. These narratives are not only incompatible, they are mutually exclusive, and they leave little to no room for empathy, dialogue, or even acknowledgment of the other side’s perspective.

When Narratives Replace Reality

Narratives are powerful tools for creating traction and alignment, but they become extremely dangerous when they are left unexamined and unchallenged. They begin to replace reality instead of helping us make sense of it. They prevent critical thinking by crowding out objective and rational analysis, eliminate nuance, hide complexity, and most importantly, end up dehumanizing the other side.

We have now reached a point in today’s climate, where merely proposing peace talks is enough to trigger immediate outrage from mainstream media commentators and social media activists, with accusations of appeasing evil. Suggesting that the “enemy” has legitimate fears or grievances is seen as weakness and betrayal. The result? Peace efforts become emotionally unbearable and politically toxic. Strategic compromises are off the table. Dialogue becomes unthinkable.

We effectively stop seeing people on both sides. We only see symbols of good or evil, aggression, victimhood, or resistance, depending on which side we are on. And that’s how wars become frozen not just on the ground but in our minds, with the tragic consequence that people continue to die for these erroneous and blind-sided narratives.

Missed Opportunities due to Ideological and Emotional Risk Blindness

There were moments, such as the Minsk Agreements (2014–2015) and the peace talks in Istanbul early in the war in 2022, when diplomatic solutions seemed within reach. Reports suggest that a neutral status for Ukraine, security guarantees, and autonomy for disputed regions were on the table. But unfortunately, political costs grew too high and trust evaporated. Neither side could break from their respective narrative bubbles to seize those chances and ultimately, war prevailed.

Each missed opportunity was buried by fears of appearing weak, losing face, betraying “the truth” as told by their own side, or even missing out on the opportunity for a military or economic victory promised by warmongers. Peace that might have been achieved in weeks disappeared as the war raged on, now dragging into years at enormous human and economic cost. A suffering that sadly could and should have been avoided.

The longer the war continues, the more entrenched the narratives become. Each loss and pain justifies more vengeance. Each gain deepens the commitment to total victory. And opportunities for diplomacy vanish beneath the noise of moral certainty.

We are now locked in a never-ending war of attrition, where the eventual collapse and defeat of one side seems to be the only imagined endgame.

Risk Management: A Method to Break Through Narrative Walls

This is where we can also use Risk Management thinking as this is not just a business toolbox but it can be a crucial lens to see through the narrative walls and provide a roadmap for peace negotiations.

Unlike narratives that are rooted in identity and emotion, risk analysis requires self-awareness. It asks decision-makers to challenge their own perceptions, clarify their goals, and weigh both short-term and long-term impacts without being blinded with an ideological or emotional fog.

We all know that the surest way to make a bad decision is to let emotions and ideology lead the way without challenge. The risk management mindset is not about suppressing values and emotions, it is about grounding decisions in reality. It offers a process for navigating uncertainty with critical thinking, transparency, and accountability.

In this case, Risk Management would encourage us to:

• Step back, switch off the emotional radiator to assess the situation objectively.
• Examine and challenge our biases and assumptions to reframe the problems.
• Identify all stakeholders and ‘walk in their shoes’ to understand the situation from their perspectives.
• Identify underlying drivers and root causes, not just surface events.
• Use structured, evidence-based methods to generate creative options.

If we had applied true risk management thinking in the early stages of the Ukraine conflict, we might have avoided escalation. We might have preserved options. We might have saved many lives.

Nevertheless, it’s never too late to do something. In my next post, I will apply a more comprehensive risk management approach to demonstrate how it can guide decision-making using the Ukraine war case. For now, let’s focus on how to reframe existing narratives.

Reframing the Narratives: Breaking Through the Walls to find a Path to Peace 

Can we change path? To move forward toward peace, we must first step back and look around and beyond ourselves. We must be able to recognize the walls we have built not just with our enemies, but within our own mind and way of thinking.

Since beyond the gruesome fight in the trenches, it is also a war of narratives. What if the first step to ending the war was not a military ceasefire but just the willingness to listen to a different story?

Don’t get me wrong, peace doesn’t require naivety. On the contrary, it requires wisdom and courage. The wisdom and courage to acknowledge the suffering of all sides. The wisdom courage to question one’s own assumptions. The wisdom and courage to imagine alternatives outside the simplistic binary logic of good vs. evil.

In our Risk Management approach, breaking through narrative walls requires reframing. Reframing is one of the most powerful tools we have in conflict resolution, strategic thinking, and risk management. It doesn’t mean ignoring reality or excusing harm or erase accountability, it means shifting the lens to open up new perspectives, pathways for understanding and possibilities for creative diplomacy.

Here are several examples of how we might reframe the entrenched narratives in the Ukraine-Russia conflict beginning to change our mindset to promote understanding, reduce polarization, and open the door to dialogue:

• From “Unprovoked Aggression” to “Security Dilemma Spiral”. Reframe the conflict as the tragic result of mutual misperceptions and an escalating security dilemma, where both sides felt increasingly threatened.
• From “NATO as Protector of Freedom” to “NATO as Strategic Actor with Mixed Motives”. Recognize NATO’s role in providing security, while acknowledging how its expansion is perceived as threatening by others.
• From “Russia as Evil Empire” to “Russia as Post-Imperial Power Struggling with Identity”. Understand Russia’s actions within the context of post-imperial identity crises and strategic fear, without excusing violations of sovereignty.
• From “Ukraine as Pure Victim” to “Ukraine as Complex Strategic Actor”. Acknowledge Ukraine’s heroism, while also recognizing the internal and external political complexities that shape its actions.
• From “Peace Means Surrender” to “Peace as Strategic Redesign”. View peace not as defeat but as a recalibration of strategy to secure long-term stability for all parties.
• From “We Must Win” to “We Must End the Suffering and Build Peace”. Shift focus from zero-sum victory to minimizing human suffering and creating the conditions for peaceful coexistence.

These reframings aren’t about moral relativism and do not invalidate the pain or interests of any side. They are about strategic empathy and unlocking stuck conversations. They allow us to ask different questions, see hidden patterns, and identify options that otherwise remain invisible. They create cognitive space for rethinking strategy, rehumanizing the opponent, and reimagining peace.

When real dialogue become possible and everything become possible again!

A Final Thought

I hope I have demonstrated in this post that if peace still remains elusive today, it is not only because the battlefield is complex and uncertain but essentially because our minds, locked in separate and irreconciliable narrative bubbles, have become far too rigid to be able to see beyond the current fight on our own.

In such a case, a ‘little’ external help can go a long way. That is when a powerful third party can intervene, take a hard look at the risk landscape, reframe the situation, with a new different narrative and mediate forcefully between the warring sides using an approach smartly combining ‘carrots and sticks’ to steer them toward a pragmatic solution acceptable by all in the prevailing circumstances. This is what Trump is trying to do. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed. At least, he is trying! 

We should too by reframing the narratives in our minds and hence lighting the path towards peace! The path to peace is not paved with slogans and ideology, but with structured thinking, honest reflection, and intellectual courage!

Also read my companion article published on ARiMI website:

Finding the Path towards Peace in Ukraine through the Fog of Narrative Bubbles