Early in December, President Zelenskyy intimated that Ukraine would consider an end to hostilities if two conditions were met: it retains sovereignty over areas of its territory it controls right now and that it is invited into NATO – this from a President that until late November was adamant to not cede any territory. Stunning as the decision may seem, especially after receiving permission to use US and EU made long-range missiles deep into Russian territory, the defeat of Democrats in the US presidential election became the writing on the wall. With the arrival of Trump, who has stated he would end the conflict within 24 hours, the flood of support in terms of weapons and funding may soon be drying up. That though still does not explain this fully: the larger problem is the nature of the conflict. While Ukraine has been ramping up its national arms facilities and has money to last through 2025, alongside the EU making preparations to continue the funding even without US support, no amount of money, drones and ballistic missiles can hold territory. It takes bodies to do that, and that’s a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win. Not only does Russia have more men to mobilize but the Ukrainian population is weary of this war and is leaning towards negotiation. A recent poll showed 38 percent support for this war continuing till ‘victory’, where just a year ago that number was at 73 percent. This is the context within which the stakeholders have to negotiate a settlement and there are 3 seats at this table. Russia Arguably Russia has already lost this war. Its principal aim was to halt the eastward march of NATO and this war has added Finland and Sweden to its ranks with Ukraine possibly not too far behind – it remains to be seen but NATO leadership has stated that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO”. Keeping Ukraine out of NATO is likely the one thing Putin will not relent on regardless of what else is offered. In fact, Zelesnkyy’s new position is the same as the one taken by Putin all the way back in May, sans NATO membership. That is not all Putin is interested in though. During his tenure Russia has seen a resurgence and, before the Crimea invasion, Russia was again playing a role on the international stage but it is now a pariah state. Putin will certainly want to leverage his ‘friendship’ with Trump to lift the economic sanctions that are crippling the Russian economy and Russia’s current military advantage secures it a dominant negotiation position. With Zelenskyy coming onboard with territorial concessions, open to a diplomatic route to regaining the occupied eastern territories, Putin should have enough to sell an end to this war along the current lines of control as a win domestically. Ukraine Ukraine has outperformed itself in this conflict and its defense has been nothing short of heroic against a much better armed and manned foe. It halted Russia from sweeping into the capital as planned in the first few weeks of the conflict, bogging it down in the east while exacting a heavy toll, claiming nearly 700,000 Russian soldiers’ lives in this bitter struggle. But it finds itself in the unenviable position of being a pawn of western interests. Ambassador Chas Freeman of the US quipped early in the war how the US was ready to “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian”. It matters little to the average Ukrainian what role they play in the game of great powers for they simply want to defend their homeland but it would pay dividends to remember the last time a nation played the same role: Afghanistan. It has been known since the 1998 interview of US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski of how the US lured Russia into Afghanistan, and once the Russians invaded the same Brzezinski told then President Carter that the US will “now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its own Vietnam War”. The analogy does not go much further because Ukraine is a white Christian nation with commitments of billions of dollars for rebuilding in the post-war period, while the brown Muslim nation of Afghanistan was left to its fate in the hands of the brutal Taliban. But the parallel remains, for while this conflict continues the western powers will keep feeding the gaping maw of the battlefield. In this context, with the flux introduced by Trump, Zelenskyy’s new tack may just save Ukraine from a slow, grinding ruin. US As the primary global power, the US has the most sway over the direction of this conflict. Biden’s position till now was one of closing off any escape routes for Putin: stall him militarily and try him for war crimes. A non-starter. With Trump at the helm, and his self-styled deal maker persona, the possibilities of ending this conflict are real. Moreover, his base of support is vehemently opposed to continuing this war or at the very least the funding of it and this sentiment cuts across his base both in the public and congress. There are different camps in the Trump team, and they are all largely aligned on the territorial concessions for Putin. NATO membership for Ukraine is more murky with some suggesting a phased 20 year admittance while others, like retired Lt. General Kellogg, believe in taking membership off the table. Trump himself is against admitting Ukraine to NATO, but he is a fickle mind and not to be taken at his word. During his campaign he vowed to cut off military aid to Ukraine but is now open to continuing it while posturing for an increase in defense funding by NATO allies. Trump is no peacemaker as is evident from his position on Israel’s war of destruction being waged now on 5 neighbors – he wants to give them a freer reign by removing even the facade of pursuing a ceasefire that the Biden administration has kept up. No, his approach to international affairs is purely transactional and then little different from hostage taking: give me the political wins I need or I will use the might of the US to push where it hurts. It is to the benefit of Ukraine that his political aims align with their own ultimate goals. He wants to secure an end to hostilities and Zelenskyy has made it easy by signaling an acceptance to territorial losses. This has the makings of a win-win-win situation for all three parties involved with only the question of NATO membership hanging in the balance. The EU is conspicuously missing from this list of stakeholders and the reason is straightforward: in terms of international affairs, the EU recognizes US supremacy and is entirely subservient to it. A simple case in point is Cuba, where the brutal and harsh sanctions that have been in place since the Kennedy administration are nearly universally condemned and opposed, with the last UN vote at 184 opposed and 2 in favor (US and Israel). Yet, no European nation has ever violated them. Another example is Iran, where the logic of the sanctions stems from their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology which they have submitted to international observation and passed inspections, yet since the US wants them sanctioned the EU follows. For all their pledges of support for Ukraine this war’s fate will never hinge on the EU’s whims. In a different world, another path could have been taken. A Europe that was free from military alliances as envisioned by Charles de Gaulle could have existed, one that was independent in its own right rather than an extension of the US will. Or later, France and Germany could have resisted Clinton’s push to add Poland, Hungary and Slovenia into NATO, further tightening the noose around Russia. And later still, Putin himself could have exploited France and Germany’s adamant refusal to admit Ukraine into NATO by bridging alliances between the three nations and pulling them from under the US influence. Many different paths could have been taken had the EU’s subservience to US interests not been near absolute, or a statesman worth their weight in mud existed in Putin’s circles, or the US cared about its allies’ lives enough to respect an adversary’s red line in the sand. We live and learn. The writer is a freelance columnist.