Fragile Promises: Ukraine, Russia, and the Scenarios Shaping Tomorrow’s Peace.

What did the meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska really give us? Long-awaited peace or more empty promises? The way the US military rolled out the red carpet for one of the world's most notorious terrorists shook the international community to its core. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that he is ready to sit down at the table with the aggressor without preconditions, but at the same time rejects any territorial concessions. At the same time, Western partners are discussing how far security guarantees should go. A recent meeting at the White House gave Ukraine symbolic support, but left unanswered questions about the stability and scale of the West's commitments, highlighting both the importance and fragility of this moment.

Western policy, especially in the face of Donald Trump, is very volatile: today he proposes to lift sanctions against Russia, tomorrow he revises punitive measures. The lack of clarity and consistency raises the following questions: What will a lasting peace agreement actually mean? Will it be based on enforceable security guarantees, the preservation of Western sovereignty and unity, or will it collapse into vague compromises that reward aggression?

Diplomatic Landscape

The Russian-Ukrainian war has long ceased to be a war between two states. Russia is waging a hybrid war far beyond the front lines, using cyberattacks, disinformation, energy blackmail, and political manipulation to destabilise Europe and test the unity of the West. The conflict cannot be viewed in isolation: Ukraine's struggle is also a struggle for European stability and the authority of international security systems.

Against this backdrop, recent diplomatic manoeuvres reveal both momentum and danger. Zelensky insists on a direct meeting with Putin without preconditions, seeking to determine whether the Kremlin is genuinely ready for peace or merely playing for time. His insistence on refusing any territorial concessions, based on the Ukrainian Constitution and backed by cautious support from allies, underscores Kyiv's determination not to legitimise aggression. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz even proposed holding a possible summit between Zelenskyy and Putin within a few weeks, raising expectations for a diplomatic breakthrough but also highlighting the risks of premature optimism.

At the same time, world political leaders approach negotiations with different strategies. In an interview, former US President Donald Trump demonstrated a transactional approach that views peace negotiations not so much as a defence of international law, but rather as bargaining with the aim of “making deals”. The summit in Alaska further illustrated this imbalance, as Putin used the stage to appear cooperative without offering any meaningful concessions, which critics say only legitimised his intransigence. These contrasting approaches — Zelenskyy's principled stance versus Moscow's insincerity and Washington's political calculations — set the tone for an unstable diplomatic situation with high stakes.

Best-Case Scenario

Imagine that in the most optimistic scenario (although from today's perspective it seems somewhat far-fetched), Ukraine will emerge from this war with its sovereignty and territorial integrity fully intact—without ceding any territory to Russia—and will achieve peace on its own terms. Ukraine will join the EU, quickly move toward NATO membership, and allies will provide political and military support to strengthen these efforts, ensuring that Ukraine's security and democratic institutions are stronger than ever.

As Rutte explained, the aid plan consists of “two levels” – strengthening Ukraine's own army and securing commitments from the US and Europe to deter any future aggression from Russia with the aim that "Vladimir... Putin, sitting in Moscow, will never again try to attack Ukraine. Russian stubbornness will yield to pressure from the international community, allowing direct negotiations to begin and a long-term peace agreement to be concluded.

However, even if such an ideal agreement were reached, it would be accompanied by serious challenges. First, Russia would undoubtedly view Ukraine's integration with the West as a provocation and proof of NATO's “encirclement,” repeating the same rhetoric that Moscow has used against the Baltic states and, more recently, against Finland and Sweden. The Kremlin may agree to negotiations in principle, only to later drag its feet or make impossible demands, effectively using the negotiations as a weapon to weaken the West's resolve. After all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has already emphasised that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky cannot take place because “the agenda is not ready at all,” which is a classic delaying tactic. Maintaining Western unity will also remain a critical challenge. Allies must unite despite political differences, especially given signs of hesitation in Washington: US officials have privately indicated that the US plans to play only a “minimal” role in any security guarantees for Ukraine, essentially leaving Europe to implement this on the ground“”. Such a limited US commitment falls far short of the reliable guarantees Ukraine needs and could undermine confidence in the security system, emboldening Moscow. 

The probability of this best-case scenario is very low. However, it is precisely the unlikelihood of an ideal outcome that underscores the need for decisive action on the part of Europe and the US. Western leaders should not abandon negotiations simply because Russia remains intransigent; on the contrary, they should strengthen their support for Ukraine now so that even if the absolute best-case scenario is unattainable, any final settlement is achieved on Ukraine's terms, not Moscow's.

Mid-Case Compromise: Ceasefire via Limited Territorial Concessions

If we consider a compromise, under intense pressure, Ukraine reluctantly agrees to cede a limited territory in Donbas, namely parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, to stop the war. In this “land for peace” deal, Vladimir Putin demands complete control over these eastern regions as the price for ending further attacks. Once Ukraine withdraws its troops from the disputed territories, Moscow commits to freezing its offensive operation along the current front line, rather than advancing further. theguardian.com. This effectively legitimises Russia's occupation of the transferred enclaves and brings a respite from large-scale combat operations, albeit at a painful cost to Ukraine's sovereignty. Kyiv's leadership has long insisted that borders “cannot be changed by force,” but under pressure, this principle is being violated to stop the bloodshed. The war is stopping roughly at the existing front line — a harsh compromise that leaves Russia with more territory and Ukraine with the rest of the country intact, at least for now.

Importantly, the truce comes with weaker security guarantees for Ukraine instead of NATO membership. A key part of the deal is that Ukraine stays out of NATO, meeting one of Moscow's main demands. Instead of the Alliance's binding defence pact, Western states are offering only vague assurances — so-called “Article 5-like” commitments on paper — that fall far short of the ironclad protection Kyiv would like, reuters.com. US President Donald Trump has promised to help “guarantee” Ukraine's security in a future peace settlement, but he has clearly ruled out sending American or NATO troops to Ukraine. reuters.com. From Russia's perspective, this satisfies a red line: the Kremlin insists that no Western forces be deployed in Ukraine, calling the very idea «a road to nowhere».

Putin would likely agree to such a truce only because it enables him to maintain pressure on Ukraine through alternative means. In the absence of overt offensive actions, Moscow will actively use covert tactics—cyberattacks, sabotage, and ruthless propaganda—to undermine Ukraine's stability without technically violating the ceasefire. Critical infrastructure may suffer mysterious outages and digital attacks; Ukrainian society is inundated with disinformation aimed at undermining morale. Thus, the truce is only a mask for the West, behind which the insidious face of war will continue to lurk.

This compromise outcome is primarily driven by war fatigue among Ukraine's allies and comes with high long-term risks. After more than three years of brutal full-scale conflict, Western support has begun to wane—unity is being undermined by “European fatigue,” and some representatives in Washington and Europe are pressuring Kyiv to agree to a pause in hostilities. Faced with declining interest in a protracted war, Ukraine is under intense diplomatic pressure to “stop the bloodshed” even at the cost of losing territory. But in fact, the aggressor benefits from its invasion, undermining the international norm against redrawing borders by force. Given that Moscow's ambitions are only partially curbed in this case and Ukraine is armed with only weak security guarantees, the conditions for continued instability are in place. This truce currently freezes the war but leaves the fundamental conflict unresolved—it is a tense pause that could escalate into a new crisis at any moment.

Worst-Case Scenario: Peace as Strategic Defeat

In this worst-case scenario, Ukraine would be forced by Russia to give up a significant part of its territory, effectively capitulating to the Kremlin's terms. Moscow insists that Kyiv withdraw its troops from all remaining Ukrainian-controlled parts of Donbas, handing this industrial centre over to Russian control. Kyiv receives only vague and unenforceable security guarantees from Western countries. As a result, the agreement is a “peace” in name only, but in essence a strategic defeat and a forced concession by Ukraine.

Mechanisms

• Russian peace proposals as a tactic: Moscow's declared readiness for negotiations is primarily a calculated tactic rather than a genuine desire to resolve the conflict. Analysts note that Russia has a history of violating ceasefires and is likely to view any agreement as a pause to regroup its forces and prepare for further aggression. Putin's ultimate goal of subjugating Ukraine remains unchanged, so any conciliatory statements serve to buy time or consolidate gains, rather than to establish lasting peace. It is telling that the vast majority of Ukrainians (91%) believe that the Kremlin is entering into negotiations only to prepare for a new attack, expecting Russia to violate the peace agreement and resume its attacks when it suits it.

• Western fatigue and superficial agreements: The West, tired of war and internal pressure, may agree to a superficial agreement just to declare progress. Eager to declare an end to the conflict, Western leaders may agree to Moscow's ambiguous promises — a “peace” agreement rich in rhetoric but poor in substance — just to demonstrate the effectiveness of diplomacy. However, without specific and enforceable conditions, such an agreement will be meaningless. If Ukraine is left without reliable security guarantees, the resumption of war will only be a matter of time.

Impacts

• Undermining Ukrainian statehood: Surrendering territory is tantamount to the capitulation of the nation and may even threaten the very survival of the country. Such an imposed peace could also seriously demoralise Ukrainian society—more than half of Ukrainians say they will protest if forced to accept an unfavourable peace agreement.

• The collapse of the European deterrence system: A peaceful settlement that effectively rewards Russian aggression will undermine confidence in the Western deterrence system. A Russian triumph—even under the guise of a “compromise”—would destabilise the European security order and embolden other authoritarian regimes around the world to test the limits of international law.

Policy Recommendations: How must we act now, in the end? 

A lasting settlement of the situation in Ukraine must be based on clear, uncompromising principles. For Ukraine, sovereignty must remain a non-negotiable principle, and throughout the negotiation process, resilience to hybrid threats must be strengthened—fortunately, the Ukrainian government remains committed to this agenda. Reliable and enforceable security guarantees are essential for Western allies—these could take the form of peacekeeping coalitions, clearly defined air support, strong political support to help the public understand the need for military force, and even the deployment of a “coalition of volunteers” on Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, mediators must reject any agreements that legitimise Russia's territorial gains and ensure that the lifting of sanctions is strictly contingent on Russia's verifiable compliance with the agreement. Finally, contingency plans must anticipate potential threats such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and migration as a means of pressure, which are likely to accompany any settlement and could undermine its sustainability if left unaddressed.

Now is the time for resolve, not resignation, as Ukraine’s defenders and their allies stand at a critical moment. President Zelenskiy has insisted Ukraine’s independence and borders “must not be changed by force”, and leaders like Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte demand enforceable, two-tier security guarantees – an immediate ceasefire plus lasting commitments from the U.S. and Europe. We cannot settle for hollow pledges while the aggressor feels emboldened. With even senior U.S. officials warning that America will play only a “minimal role” in future guarantees, European democracies and other allies must urgently step up with concrete support. Stand with Ukraine now: ensure tomorrow’s peace is built on strength, not compromise, so that justice – not empty promises – prevails.