The Unclear Path of Peace and War After Alaska Konstantinos Loukopoulos*
For those who study the war in Ukraine and understand its complexity, it is not surprising that following the intense diplomatic activity around mid-August, including the Trump–Putin meeting, diplomatic efforts have stalled while hostilities continue. President Trump may have left the summit believing that he had secured agreement on launching a negotiation process to end the war. President Putin, however, having already succeeded in preventing a ceasefire prior to any agreement, emerged confident that he could continue the conflict on his own terms.
The American president, who believes he merits a Nobel Peace Prize, expressed disappointment and acknowledged that achieving peace in Ukraine was not as straightforward as he had expected. Putin, on the other hand, drawing on his long experience in intelligence and his capacity for manipulation and diversion, appears to have outmaneuvered the “Trump team.” He shows no urgency to terminate the war, as he considers that Russia has already achieved a strategic advantage, and that prolonging hostilities will further consolidate this position. Russia’s war economy, despite certain difficulties, seems capable of sustaining military operations for at least the next two years. Russian forces maintain the strategic initiative; territorial gains, although incremental and costly, continue, while Ukraine is facing depletion of manpower and resources.
Wars typically end either with decisive victory and the imposition of the victor’s will upon the defeated, or when both sides recognize that the costs of continuing outweigh the benefits, thereby creating incentives for compromise. In Kyiv, it has long been acknowledged that defeating Russia and regaining occupied territories is unattainable, and that destruction increases daily. President Zelensky faces a critical strategic dilemma: to accept a painful and highly inequitable diplomatic settlement now, or to continue the conflict and risk total military defeat followed by the imposition of even harsher terms.
One conceivable option would be Kyiv’s de jure recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and acceptance of Russia’s de facto control of much of Donbas. However, it remains politically and militarily impossible for Ukraine to formally cede territory, as demanded by Putin in any settlement. Moreover, surrendering the fortified “fortress cities” of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, and Kostyantynivka could enable a deeper Russian advance toward the Dnipro. Putin appears to seek an open-ended negotiation process, pressing Zelensky to reject proposals such as a meeting in Moscow, while insisting that the purpose of any settlement must be the “elimination of the root causes of the conflict.” Consequently, combat operations and a war of attrition continue.
With the pathway to peace remaining unclear, the war will persist under conditions largely dictated by the Kremlin. The duration is uncertain. Nevertheless, two realities are evident: first, Moscow currently controls approximately 21% of Ukrainian territory, maintaining a land corridor linking Crimea through Mariupol and Donbas to Russia, with potential for further expansion; second, Ukraine lacks the military capacity to recover this territory, while simultaneously suffering ongoing devastation and exhaustion. This is a stark reality that many in Europe remain reluctant to acknowledge.
In conclusion, the recent diplomatic activity was not without significance. It initiated a negotiation process and opened the search for compromises necessary to resolve the conflict. A guiding principle of such a process should be for Ukraine to minimize its losses while preventing Russia from achieving total gains. It is arguable that only President Trump might be in a position to facilitate such an outcome, as Europe’s capacity for influence has, unfortunately, been limited—something reflected in the symbolic nature of European leaders’ visit to the White House.
*This blog post was written by General Konstantinos Loukopoulos, a very well-known geopolitical strategist.
Lieutenant General (ret) Konstantinos Loukopoulos is a senior consultant in defense planning and strategic management. He has held various positions in Greece and NATO. Spokesperson for the Chief of Defense, Director of IR at the Ministry of Defense, Instructor and Director of Military Cooperation at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Defense Planning Coordinator at the IMS at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, where he regularly chaired the NATO Military Capabilities Committee Working Group.
