Ukraine: The Endgame Shapes in the Shadows

Ukraine: The Endgame Shapes in the Shadows

✍️ Author’s Note

This post serves as both a summation and a bridge. Over nearly a decade, I have written extensively about Ukraine, Russia, and the great-power contest playing out on Europe’s eastern flank. While my earlier pieces traced the roots and misjudgment’s that brought us here, this “hub” connects past analysis to the present moment — a narrowing endgame in which Ukraine’s fate will be decided largely by others. It is not the final word, but it may be the last before the dust settles.

Opening

The board is smaller now. The pieces fewer. What began as a sprawling, unpredictable war has narrowed into an endgame where Ukraine’s king is boxed in, and the decisive moves in this three-dimensional chess game for influence on the Eurasian frontier will be played by others.

For almost a decade — fourteen posts between 2015 and 2025 — I have traced this conflict’s deep roots, missed opportunities, and the steady erosion of Ukraine’s agency. In Ukraine: A Conflict Thirty Years in the Making , I explored its origins and stressed a universal truth: wars end in negotiation, and those negotiations are shaped by battlefield realities. Strategic logic and pragmatism are not luxuries — they are survival.

One scenario I then considered is now taking shape: a settlement with land concessions — Crimea, the Donbas, perhaps more — in exchange for security guarantees and a long, uncertain path toward EU membership. It was never a good option, but it may prove the least bad.

With the transactional instincts of the Trump administration and a war locked in stalemate for three years, it is increasingly likely that the United States and Russia will strike a framework deal without Ukraine or the EU at the main table. European influence has been marginal under Bush, Obama, Biden, and now Trump; Europe has allowed itself to be treated as an interested but secondary party in a matter that will shape its own security landscape. Today is no different.

The Predicted Scenario Comes Into View

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are expected to meet in Alaska to discuss ways of ending the war. Other meetings will follow. Whether in a gilded palace or behind closed doors, the fact of such encounters sends tremors through Kyiv and Brussels.

Plans remain unclear, but one thing is certain: Trump has already broken Russia’s isolation, and the EU — concerned, better say unsettled — insists that “Ukraine must be involved in decisions about its own future.” Officially, European leaders welcome American efforts and stress that Europe should be part of any settlement. But they know the gravitational pull of a U.S.–Russia channel.

When Washington decides it wants a deal, and Putin trims his demands, there will be a deal — Ukraine will be in the antechamber.”

President Zelensky repeats the familiar refrain: no territorial concessions, a “fair peace” on Ukrainian terms. In vivid language, he warns against capitulation. Yet wars rarely end that way. In our brutal world, when Washington decides it wants a deal — and Putin trims his maximalist demands — there will be a deal. Ukraine’s role will be reduced to the antechamber. Unless the West commits to an open-ended war, or accepts the risk of Russia devastating Ukraine entirely, compromise is inevitable.

Rhetoric and Reality

European leaders declare that until Russia agrees to a “full and unconditional ceasefire, we should not even discuss concessions.” They insist that Ukraine’s president be part of any talks, and they repeat the principles: borders are inviolable; any compromise must be backed by firm security guarantees.

The EU’s public phrases are lofty:

“Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny.”
“The path to peace cannot be decided without Ukraine.”
“Borders must not be changed by force.”

But they ring as hollow as “as long as it takes.” The latest discussion of a 19th package of sanctions fits the same pattern: symbolic persistence with little strategic impact. Sanctions are a blunt instrument, often politically satisfying but rarely transformative. Ukraine’s battlefield resilience, meanwhile, is financed from abroad. Wars are decided not only by weapons but by the steady flow of money and political will. When that flow ebbs, lofty rhetoric collapses into realpolitik.

Wars are decided not only by weapons but by the steady flow of money and political will.”

In Ukraine: Between Power and Principle , I explored this moral contradiction — professed values constrained by political limits. In Ukraine: Between Absolute satisfaction and Balanced Dissatisfaction , I argued that a settlement leaving both sides equally unhappy might be the least-bad option. That moment approaches.

The Brutal Logic of Power

History reminds us that Europe’s borders have rarely been set by principle alone. The EU’s own map — from the Balkans to Cyprus — tells of compromises, coercion, and hard diplomacy. To think the 21st century will be different, and that Ukraine will be an exception, is to indulge in comforting illusions.

To think the 21st century will be different, and that Ukraine will be an exception, is to indulge in comforting illusions.”

In Ukraine the Fruits of Delusion and Hubris: What Follows is Nemesis , I argued that the West misjudged the balance between ambition and means. The drift toward a settlement crafted in Washington and Moscow confirms it.

Beyond the War’s Horizon

From Russia, A Great Weak Nation to  Russia, Vladimir Putin, Ivan Ilyin and the Bitter Fruits of History , I have argued that Russia’s behaviour springs from a mix of weakness and ideology — a volatile combination. But for Ukraine, the decisive factors now are external. The shape of the war’s horizon will be drawn not in Kyiv, but in other capitals.

The game is not yet over. A few moves remain. But the endgame is visible in the shadows — and when the final move comes, it will be announced from a city that is not Kyiv.

The game is not yet over. But the endgame is visible in the shadows — and the final move will be announced from a city that is not Kyiv.”

A Note to the Reader

This is a hub, not an end. For those tracing the long arc of this war, begin with In Ukraine: A Conflict Thirty Years in the Making , then Ukraine: A Pawn on the Eurasian Chessboard for the geopolitical frame, and Ukraine: Between Power and Principle for the moral dimension. To understand how we arrived here, close with In Ukraine the Fruits of Delusion and Hubris: What Follows is Nemesis — the logical conclusion of misplaced confidence and strategic overreach.

📌 Blog Excerpt

After three years of stalemate, the Ukraine war is entering its endgame. The pieces on the board are fewer, the options narrower, and the decisive moves will be played far from Kyiv. Lofty rhetoric from Western capitals masks a harsher reality: when Washington and Moscow decide it is time for a deal, Ukraine will be in the antechamber. This post looks at how we arrived here — and what history tells us about how such games end.