Ukraine Endgame: The Path to an Imperfect Peace

Executive summary

In our May 2025 report, we assessed that Ukraine would most likely be forced into an unsavory, "Georgialike" settlement with Russia—one that would, over time, pull it back toward Moscow’s orbit. At the time, the strategic picture was deteriorating. The United States was signaling a preference for a rapid settlement, and a contentious Oval Office meeting between the U.S. and Ukrainian Presidents raised the prospect that American military aid could be stopped altogether. Europe, meanwhile, was confronting a stark overreliance on Washington—scrambling to close gaps in defense spending and industrial capacity—while failing to articulate a credible framework for long-term security guarantees for Ukraine or a post-ceasefire presence on the ground. Over the past year, two developments have meaningfully shifted that trajectory, at least for now:

• First, Europe has stepped forward as the primary backer of Ukraine. As U.S. military support dropped 99% in 2025, Europeans moved to fill the gap. According to the Kiel Support Tracker, which monitors military donations to Kyiv, Europe increased its humanitarian and financial aid by 59% and military aid by 67% compared to 2022–2024 averages. This allowed total aid in 2025 to remain relatively constant. Brussels also advanced Ukraine’s path toward EU accession to its most concrete point to date.
• Second, the contours of Western security assurances have started to come into focus. While still falling short of a NATO-style guarantee or a large multinational tripwire force, the U.S. and Europe have clarified their willingness to play a sustained post-conflict role—removing a key source of uncertainty that loomed large a year ago.

Taken together, these shifts lead us to upgrade our base case. Ukraine will have to swallow difficult concessions—especially on territory. But we now assess that substantial European support, combined with limited but tangible Western security backing, could be sufficient for the part of Ukraine under Kyiv’s control—about 80% of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory—to establish a form of deterrence, stabilize economically, and continue integrating westward.

Under current conditions, a negotiated settlement could emerge as early as this year. In this report, we assess how the conflict is evolving across three key theaters—the diplomatic, financial, and military— which together will determine each side’s negotiating position and the durability of any settlement. The trajectory of the conflict will be determined not by the next offensive, but by how these three theaters evolve and intersect—and whether they hold long enough to produce a deal.

Based on these dynamics, we assess that Ukraine’s most likely path has shifted from a "Georgia-like" trajectory toward a more "Finland-like" outcome. Finland ceded about ten percent of its territory to the Soviet Union in 1944, but went on to maintain its sovereignty, prosperity, and Western alignment for decades despite not having formal Western security guarantees or in-country forces prior to its NATO accession in 2022. While no analogy is perfect, we envision a similar outcome for Ukraine—one that preserves sovereignty and Western alignment but falls short of a fully just or secure peace.

• This trajectory is far from certain. A range of disruptors could still reshape the balance—many of them to Ukraine’s disadvantage. In particular, the evolving Iran conflict introduces second- and third-order effects that risk diverting Western attention, resources, and political capital at a critical moment.