From battlefield to bargaining table: Can the Ukraine war end at the negotiating desk?

The Russian-Ukrainian war appears to be moving towards a peace project after the Alaska summit between US and Russian leaders. However, the European and Ukrainian sides are also key players in the equation of war and peace, with differing approaches, horizons and strategies.

Perhaps this is why a meeting was held in Washington to discuss peace in Ukraine with the participation of US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and European leaders, to explore the possibility of reaching real peace and establishing security guarantees for Ukraine after the war ends. Europe feels directly threatened by Russia, unlike the United States, and seeks a peace that guarantees Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence and deterrence. This could even involve deploying European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. Although there is no European consensus on such a step, it could ultimately drag Europe into future fighting with Russia, especially without US support, meaning it would be an initiative outside NATO. Meanwhile, Russia’s military expenditure, measured by purchasing power, is higher than Europe’s combined defence spending. It has risen by 41%, now amounting to 6.7% of GDP, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

On the Russian side, the equation remains unchanged: Ukraine must relinquish Donbas and Crimea, must not join NATO, and in return, security guarantees should provide the US and Europe with collective defense commitments for Ukraine if Russia launches a new attack. Moscow is thus negotiating from a position of strength, while the European and Ukrainian stance appears weaker. Challenges extend beyond Europe to issues such as joint defence with the United States.

There seems to be agreement among all parties on the importance of ending the conflict in both its smaller form — Russia vs Ukraine — and its larger form — Russia vs the West. The dispute, however, lies in the form of the peace process and the post-war arrangement. In the current situation, Europeans alone cannot impose peace and need NATO, or, more precisely, the United States. The US administration, under Donald Trump, has different policies and goals from European leaders. Washington does not want deeper involvement in Ukraine, while Trump seeks to reinforce his image as a global peace broker. Europe, however, considers Russia a current and future threat and needs the US defence partnership under NATO.

Trump, on several occasions, blamed Ukraine for prolonging the conflict, proposing deals that exploit Ukraine’s natural resources as compensation for US military and non-military aid during the war. He argues that Europe’s security is Europe’s responsibility, consistent with his “America First” policy, which prioritises US interests and evaluates actions in terms of profit, loss, and deals, departing from longstanding US foreign policy traditions.

The Ukrainian president has scaled back his peace demands somewhat, focusing now on securing security guarantees while stepping back from his earlier insistence on NATO membership — something the US does not support. While Europe is currently closest to Ukraine’s position, it cannot fully meet Kyiv’s needs. Europe hopes the US will support European forces to help maintain peace in Ukraine, should the divided European proposal for such deployment materialise. At this stage, a political tug-of-war is likely, with occasional escalations on the battlefield.

Although direct dialogue is the best path to settlement, responses — particularly from the main warring parties — may not always be straightforward. Yet, the complete collapse of the process seems unlikely after the US and Russia reached a formula meant to balance Kyiv’s security demands with Moscow’s strategic guarantees, with Trump’s administration pressing for direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian leaders to outline the main lines of peace.

Major obstacles remain. Moscow insists on keeping its territorial gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, while Kyiv insists on full Russian withdrawal from its internationally recognised territory. Here, progress is possible only if one side makes concessions or a compromise formula is reached.

Security guarantees also remain contentious: Ukraine wants international involvement in peacekeeping, while Russia wants to preserve the new balance of power on the ground. Europe lacks sufficient military capabilities to deploy forces in Ukraine. Moreover, Europe views the US position as closer to Russia. Ukraine finds itself caught between losing its territory and losing its security guarantees of NATO membership while under US pressure to end the war.

The equation is difficult, but the costs are enormous: the Ukrainian war has cost the global economy $3 trillion; Europe alone has lost about $1.5 trillion due to economic slowdown and inflation; Ukraine has lost nearly $1 trillion from infrastructure destruction and disrupted production; and Russia’s daily losses have at times exceeded $300 million, according to some estimates. In such a tangled situation, the negotiating table remains the decisive factor shaping the future of Ukraine and Europe.

In the end, the negotiations are not expected to proceed without obstacles or mutual accusations between the parties to the conflict. What is certain, however, is that diplomacy and politics have become the defining feature of the current stage in an effort to reach an agreement that would end the fighting that has been ongoing since 2022 and open a new chapter that closes the front of confrontation between Moscow and Kyiv and between the West and Russia.

Yet, the international and regional complexities and entanglements make it extremely difficult to reach a final settlement, given the heavy losses and serious threats the crisis poses to the stability, security, and economy of Europe and the world.

Elyazia Jasim AlHosani is the Head of the Media Communications Department at TRENDS Research & Advisory