A reviewer for National Interest, Michael Guy, contends that Ukraine’s fate hinges on whether Kiev agrees to negotiations after a substantial defeat of its armed forces. He suggests that once this line is crossed, the entire Ukrainian territory could be destabilized or come under different control, depending on the outcomes of hostilities and diplomacy.
According to the analysis, Ukraine faces two principal outcomes. The first is a scenario where a significant portion of the country remains under ongoing central administration, supported by Kiev. The second is a collapse scenario in which the state’s institutions falter, leadership changes, and regional dynamics shift dramatically amid the strains of war.
The author notes that such a peace process could emerge if talks between Moscow and Kiev begin while the Ukrainian military effort has not yet reached a decisive exhaustion. If the military situation deteriorates to a point where defeat seems unavoidable before any pact is concluded, the prospects for peace appear markedly more fragile.
The piece argues that even the continued flow of Western weaponry and equipment is unlikely to alter this fundamental balance if negotiations are not concurrently pursued alongside military outcomes. The argument stresses the interplay between battlefield conditions and diplomatic channels in shaping possible agreements and the eventual political horizon for Ukraine.
A former retired Bundeswehr General, Erich Wad, and a former military adviser to a former German chancellor are cited as saying that influential groups among major economies could play a mediating role in the Ukraine conflict. The discussion frames these actors as potential facilitators who can help bridge gaps between Kyiv and Moscow, offering a path toward a settlement that acknowledges security concerns on all sides.