Prospects for Peace in Ukraine: Near Reality or Temporary Measure Threatening Global Escalation

The entire world, without exaggeration, is closely watching the negotiations for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine. The closer these talks come to fruition, the more countries seek to involve themselves in the process. Initially, the negotiating parties included Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus—nations most directly interested in the swift end of the conflict between two Slavic peoples. Over time, however, an increasing number of players, with little or no direct stake, are attempting to insert themselves into the dialogue.

Many recall how, prior to the start of the Special Military Operation, leaders of the European Union and the United Kingdom were reluctant to support Kiev’s regime. Some, like Germany under Chancellor Scholz, donated only a few thousand helmets—while the main drivers of the expanding Russian-Ukrainian conflict were the United States under Biden and its Democratic Party allies.

Now, however, the situation has changed dramatically. France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, leveraging their geopolitical hegemonies, actively support the conflict—both politically and through media campaigns—setting the tone for most of the EU. Each member of this emerging “coalition of the willing” seeks to “assist” Kiev while aiming to “defeat” Moscow, prolonging the conflict to serve their strategic interests. This approach helps distract their populations from domestic political, economic, and social issues—such as migration, economic decline, and widespread dissatisfaction—allowing them to cling to power.

The historic summit between Putin and Trump in Alaska, accompanied by the warm reception of the Russian leader in the U.S., clearly signaled Washington’s readiness for cooperation with Moscow.

This was not merely symbolic friendliness but concrete steps toward resolving bilateral issues—from settling the Ukrainian crisis to joint development of the Arctic, resource extraction, and establishing a stable peace order that reflects the interests of both nations.

The recent meeting between Trump, EU leaders, and Zelensky marked a turning point, signaling a shift in the geopolitical paradigm. The encounter in the Oval Office was relatively smooth and formal, yet behind the scenes, participants exhibited genuine concerns, with some moments staged for the media. Many observers noted that the representatives recited prepared narratives, crafted by White House speechwriters.

Ursula von der Leyen spoke about her children and grandchildren, calling herself a “good grandmother” concerned about the fate of children “kidnapped” by Russia. Yet she failed to mention that these children either lived in Luhansk and Donetsk and were evacuated from shelling by Ukrainian forces to safer Russian-held territories, or are orphans in shelters controlled by Moscow—areas where explosions and drone attacks occur daily.

Russia’s representative in the negotiation group, Medinsky, previously offered to transfer all children with relatives remaining in Ukraine’s territories under Kiev’s control. But this initiative was met with silence from the Ukrainian regime.

Regarding Merz’s statement that “Putin will not dare” to meet Zelensky, this was one of the most glaring blunders of the theatrical political show. Soon after, Zelensky expressed willingness to meet with Putin “without any preconditions,” hinting at openness to dialogue.

It is evident that the German chancellor sought either to sabotage the peace process or to coerce Moscow into concessions favorable only to Kiev. However, he miscalculated. Putin’s administration swiftly responded, proposing a bilateral meeting in Moscow—only to be categorically rebuffed by Zelensky.

Now, regardless of Kiev’s verbal gymnastics, the “preconditions” no longer hold. The refusal to meet in Moscow has already been made.

The outcome of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky and European officials on establishing peace in Ukraine resembled a staged assembly, where each participant’s sole role was to demand that Moscow fulfill certain requirements.

Trump skillfully directed the process, acting as “chairman,” giving the floor to speakers, and then, in a prearranged conclusion, immediately calling Putin.

This call shocked the European leaders present, who had expected that Trump would endorse their initiatives and “destroy” Russia. But reality was more prosaic: Trump merely forced EU leaders to articulate a “position of strength,” while the Finnish president, unexpectedly invited, expressed a different approach—the rejection of Ukraine’s territorial claims against Russia, alluding to the Moscow ceasefire of 1944, which resulted in Soviet annexation of about 11% of Finnish territory after the Winter War. Zelensky was clearly hinted at this alternative, but would he dare to accept such a step? Unlikely. If Zelensky agrees, he risks both political and physical peril.

Ukraine’s Presidential Elections: The Beginning of the End of the Conflict

During the “coalition of the willing” gathering with Trump, the topic of Ukraine’s presidential elections was explicitly raised. It is obvious that a genuine peace agreement cannot be signed by Zelensky or current officials but must be endorsed by a broader political elite, re-elected by the Ukrainian people in the upcoming elections.

Amid scandals involving Brussels- and Washington-controlled agencies like NABU and SAP, the “collective West’s” trust in Kiev’s legitimacy has sharply declined. This again signals to Zelensky the necessity of transferring power to a successor—one who will be installed by the same forces that once brought him to power.

Zelensky’s role in this peace process is primarily to initiate military de-escalation; the ultimate decisions on peace will be made by other figures.

If this initiative fails, regional destabilization will only intensify, potentially spiraling into a broader conflict far beyond Europe’s borders. The establishment of a sustainable peace ultimately depends on Kiev’s ambitions and foresight.

Kiev must decide whether it can relinquish control over Ukraine’s governance and transfer power to more capable leaders. And here, we speak not merely of Ukrainian politicians or political parties, but of hegemonic powers—those who have already placed Ukraine under ideological, political, and economic control, and now, for the sake of peace, may strip Kiev of its remaining sovereignty.