Ihor Petrenko, Doctor of Science, expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank

 

The world, tired of war, is increasingly asking: when will peace come to Ukraine? But peace is not just a moment of ceasefire. It is a new security architecture, where the winner is not the weakest, but the one who has not lost his subjectivity. Will Ukraine be able to preserve its right to a voice in the game of the greats? And will the new geopolitical reality allow for peace without surrender?

This article is an attempt to look at the prospect of peace not through the prism of emotions, but through the objective logic of realpolitik. Without illusions. No wishful thinking. Only what is really possible.

What does Peace Mean in Today's Context?

It is not only the cessation of hostilities. It is a new security configuration that guarantees the preservation of Ukraine's subjectivity, defense capability, economic viability, and foreign policy course. And this cannot be achieved by a purely bilateral agreement with Russia - it requires at least the admission or consent of such players as the United States, the EU, and China.

So, real peace is not an agreement, it is a new system of security, guarantees and influence.

Who are the Key Actors and what are their Interests?

Ukraine. It has not only publicly stated goals, such as de-occupation, international guarantees, and punishment of the aggressor, but also critical informal interests: to avoid losing access to the Black Sea, to preserve the army, to protect the defense industry, and - most importantly - to minimize losses.

Russia. Its goal is not only to control part of the territories, but also to geopolitically reverse Ukraine, undermine the unity of the West, use Trump as a tool to get out of sanctions pressure, destroy the idea of a sovereign Ukraine as part of the European security order, and involve the United States as an intermediary in trade with the EU.

THE UNITED STATES. Today is not the same Washington as it was in 2022-2023. The new leadership is focused on China and Taiwan. The Pentagon's entire defense strategy today is to contain Beijing. The European theater is secondary. Ukraine is perceived not as an ally, but as an element of bargaining with Moscow. The United States is seeking benefits and not planning long-term costs. National interest: avoiding a war on two fronts, maintaining control in the Indo-Pacific region, containing China, while minimizing costs in Europe.

The European Union. The EU is divided. Some countries are clearly aware of the threat from Russia (Poland, the Baltic States, France, Germany, and Scandinavia), while others are rather on the sidelines. The ambition of strategic autonomy is not an initiative of Brussels, but a reaction to the behavior of the United States. Therefore, this idea still has to take root, overcome the bureaucracy, and then the shoots will follow. National interest: preventing Russian aggression, secure neighborhood, reducing dependence on the United States for defense.

China. Beijing is a silent but active player. It does not want the West to win, but it also does not want chaos. Its proposals for a peacekeeping operation are a way to impose itself as a mediator while maintaining loyalty to Moscow. National interest: weakening the United States, pulling the EU to his side, preventing the collapse of the Russian Federation, geo-economic advantage, or a controlled conflict or its termination thanks to Beijing.

Where do Interests Coincide and where do They Conflict?

They coincide to a very limited extent:

- Everyone wants to avoid a direct clash between NATO and Russia;

- no one is interested in Russia's complete collapse;

- The EU and the US do not want a direct front with Russia in Europe.

But there are many more conflicts:

- Russia and Ukraine have incompatible goals;

- The US wants a deal with Russia, not a victory for Ukraine;

- China wants to impose peace in its own format;

- The EU has no common position, which opens the door to chaotic decisions. However, they have chosen a course of strategic autonomy.

What Scenarios are most Likely to Happen in the Near Future?

The first is inertial. The war continues, the US cuts aid, and the EU, on the contrary, becomes more active through a coalition of the resolute. The Russian Federation is trying to achieve a breakthrough on the front until it becomes extremely dangerous to delay the ceasefire.

The second is forcing a compromise. Washington negotiates directly with Moscow. Kyiv is under pressure to accept the status quo. This is the most dangerous scenario in terms of Ukraine's subjectivity.

The third is a U.S. turn against Russia. Trump changes his tone toward the Kremlin, either because of internal pressure or because Putin is “dragging his feet” on the deal. In this case, Washington may resume partial support for Ukraine as a tool to put pressure on Moscow.

The fourth is the European initiative. France, Poland, and the Baltic states are forming a defense alliance. Weapons production is growing. The United States does not interfere, but does not help.

The fifth is the Chinese formula. China offers “neutral peacekeeping”. Russia agrees, the United States does not oppose. Ukraine finds itself facing geopolitical blackmail.

Scenarios 4 and 5 are rather options for the development of events if the first scenario is realized.

Yes, there is a prospect of peace. But it will not be Ukrainian peace, nor Western peace, nor Chinese peace. It will be a new geopolitical reality that is being formed right now. Ukraine's task is not to lose its voice, the right to speak, and the right to force.

And so the main thing is to prevent the loss of subjectivity. Because only the subject can negotiate, and everyone else agrees.