At this time we just don't have enough evidence to be sure. We know that the IRA approached the British government about talks but it is not clear whether they were really offering an end to hostilities. At the risk of channelling Donald Rumsfeld, we have known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Part of the problem is that several key figures, especially Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are active politicians who can't be honest for political and legal reasons (neither even admit they were in the IRA at the time). It is still a criminal offence to have been in the IRA so many former members are staying quiet. Recently an attempt at an oral history project in Boston College backfired when the courts ruled that it could not keep its records secret from the police.
A few of the known unknowns are:
how much did Adams, McGuinness and their allies plan the outcome that arose and how much did they Improvise? Was it initiated by the leadership or a response to grassroots views.
How much did British intelligence influence the process via their infiltration of senior republican and Loyalist circles? How much did the British government direct this?
Were the Adams faction ever going to dismantle the IRA and decomission weapons or was this the outcome of Unionist pressure?
Most importantly were the IRA on the brink of defeat when they entered negotiations or were they genuinely trying to change tactics in response to a military stalemate.
We can have opinions on all of these but there just isn't enough evidence available to write proper history yet.
I'm sorry, but the end of the Troubles (which some argue haven't even ended yet) is a period that stretches from the late 90s to around 2007. We do not allow discussions of events after 1995 in this sub. I would recommend that you go to /r/AskSocialScience. :)