With a deadlocked front line, the state of Ukraine peace talks and what Putin wants

Ukraine Under Fire: A "Compass Points" Discussion Summary

Key Concepts:

• War of Attrition: A prolonged conflict where the goal is to exhaust the enemy’s resources (manpower, economy, will to fight).
• Diminishing Returns: The point at which increased effort yields smaller and smaller gains.
• Shadow Fleet: A network of tankers used by Russia to circumvent sanctions and continue exporting energy.
• Fungible Resources: Resources that are interchangeable and can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., US military aid diverted from other areas).
• Security Guarantees: Commitments by one or more nations to defend another in case of attack (e.g., Article 5 of NATO).
• European Pillar: The concept of Europe developing its own independent defense capabilities and taking greater responsibility for its security.
• Performative Diplomacy: Negotiations conducted primarily for show, with no genuine intention of reaching a resolution.

I. State of the War & Military Assessment

The discussion centers on the ongoing war in Ukraine, now approaching its fifth year, characterized by a brutal stalemate and intensified Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid (over 200 attacks since the beginning of the year). Michael Kofman notes that while Russia made incremental territorial gains in 2025 and 2024, these gains came at a disproportionately high cost in casualties. Ukrainian forces, despite challenges with manpower and material, have managed to prevent significant Russian breakthroughs through focused training and defensive tactics. However, Justin Logan argues that Ukraine is “gradually, incrementally losing” due to its reliance on foreign support and Russia’s greater capacity to endure a protracted war of attrition. He highlights the significant financial aid already provided ($90 billion from Europe) and questions the long-term sustainability of this support. Kofman emphasizes a fundamental mismatch between Russia’s military capabilities and its political goals, suggesting that even tactical successes don’t necessarily translate into achieving those goals. He also points to the economic strain on Russia, with low energy prices and increasing sanctions pressure.

II. Putin’s Objectives & Negotiating Tactics

Angela Stent asserts that Vladimir Putin believes he can break the will of the Ukrainian people through continued bombardment and views negotiations as a means to appease the US while continuing the war effort. Putin’s primary goal remains the subjugation of Ukraine and control over its foreign policy. Bill Taylor strongly refutes the idea that Putin is genuinely seeking a negotiated settlement, citing the ongoing attacks and Russia’s maximalist demands (full control of Donbas, Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant). Stent describes Russia’s negotiating tactics as “performative,” echoing Soviet-era strategies of prolonging negotiations to wear down opponents. She points to discrepancies between Russian and Western proposals, highlighting Russia’s insistence on a 28-point plan and rejection of the West’s 20-point plan.

III. US Role & Potential Leverage

The panel extensively discusses the US role in the conflict. Taylor argues that it is in the US interest to continue supporting Ukraine to prevent Russia from succeeding in its aggression and to uphold the post-World War II European security structure. He emphasizes that Ukrainians are fighting for their very existence and are determined to resist Russian occupation. Logan, however, questions the prioritization of Ukraine over domestic US concerns, citing the significant financial cost ($100-200 billion spent so far, potentially $750 billion for rebuilding) and the depletion of US military resources (e.g., air defenses). He suggests a reassessment of US involvement based on a cost-benefit analysis. The discussion reveals that the Trump administration has used both direct intelligence sharing and indirect support (selling weapons to Europe for transfer to Ukraine) to aid Ukraine while pursuing a negotiated settlement. Taylor reveals that Putin responded to threats of US aid (specifically Tomahawk missiles) and sanctions on Indian purchases of Russian oil by directly contacting Trump, demonstrating Putin’s awareness of Trump’s potential leverage.

IV. European Capacity & Security Guarantees

The conversation turns to Europe’s ability to shoulder greater responsibility for its own security. Kofman cautions that European militaries are currently structured to operate with US support and lack the independent capacity to effectively counter Russia without it. He emphasizes that increased defense spending alone won’t solve the problem and questions the feasibility of a truly independent “European pillar.” Stent acknowledges that Europe needs to step up but stresses that it cannot replace the US in the short term. Logan raises concerns about the credibility of potential US security guarantees to Ukraine, pointing to the historical context of US reluctance to directly confront Russia over Ukraine. Taylor, however, expresses optimism that the US will provide legally binding security guarantees to Ukraine, as indicated by recent statements. Rutte, the Secretary-General of NATO, is quoted as stating that Europe still needs the United States for its defense, acknowledging the US nuclear umbrella.

V. Key Quotes & Observations

• Angela Stent: “This is entirely performative [referring to Russian negotiations].”
• Justin Logan: “Who can suffer longer with more success?” (regarding the war of attrition).
• Bill Taylor: “If they lose, there’s no Ukraine.” (describing the Ukrainian perspective).
• Mark Rutte: “If anyone thinks here that the European Union…can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming.”
• Michael Kofman: “There’s no guarantee that any amount of increased defense spending in Europe is going to lead to any of them building the kind of capabilities they need to substitute American military power on the continent.”
• Bill Taylor: “President Trump loves who he is.” (reflecting Zelenskyy’s assessment of Trump’s personality and motivations).

VI. Synthesis & Conclusion

The discussion paints a grim picture of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, characterized by a brutal stalemate and a lack of genuine progress towards a negotiated settlement. While Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience, its long-term survival hinges on continued foreign support, particularly from the US. However, the sustainability of that support is increasingly questioned, given domestic US priorities and concerns about resource constraints. Europe is urged to increase its defense capabilities, but it is acknowledged that it cannot currently replace the US as the guarantor of European security. The panel highlights the complex interplay of military, economic, and political factors, and underscores the difficulty of achieving a lasting resolution in the absence of a fundamental shift in Putin’s objectives or a willingness to compromise on core principles. The future of Ukraine remains uncertain, dependent on a delicate balance of international support, battlefield dynamics, and the evolving political landscape.