Ukraine at the crossroads of global power and the changing international order

Ukraine's central concern is whether great-power diplomacy will facilitate a settlement it can accept or produce an agreement negotiated primarily to satisfy American and Russian interests. Bilateral negotiations between Washington and Moscow risk marginalising Ukraine and its European partners. This creates a fundamental diplomatic problem: an agreement on Ukraine's territory and security cannot be assumed sustainable if Ukraine is excluded from determining its terms.

The same problem arises with territorial concessions. A Kyiv International Institute of Sociology survey conducted between 8 and 16 October 2026 found that 61 per cent of respondents opposed surrendering the Donbas region in exchange for security guarantees, while 35 per cent supported such a concession. It also reports that 62 per cent of respondents were prepared to endure the war for as long as necessary. These figures suggest substantial public resistance to an externally imposed settlement. They also indicate that the Ukrainian government must balance diplomatic pressures with domestic expectations about sovereignty, security, and the sacrifices already made during the war.

The report raises a further concern about American economic policy towards Russia. It describes a proposed or negotiated arrangement involving Russian diesel and fertiliser purchases, accompanied by sanctions exemptions. These measures could restore revenues to the Russian state budget without securing a corresponding reduction in Russian military operations. The significance for Ukraine is straightforward: economic concessions to Russia may weaken the pressure that sanctions are intended to exert. If Russia receives additional revenue while continuing its military campaign, it may gain more resources to sustain it.

At the same time, the United States has its own domestic economic, political and strategic priorities. Washington wants to reduce certain economic pressures and redirect strategic resources toward the Indo-Pacific, creating the possibility of a divergence between American priorities and Ukraine's immediate security requirements.

Ukraine's challenge is consequently to maintain American engagement while encouraging a diplomatic approach that recognises Ukrainian agency, territorial integrity and the need for credible security arrangements.

Europe and NATO: from dependence towards greater strategic responsibility

Europe occupies a particularly important position because the war's consequences extend directly into the continent's security environment. Friction is evident between American diplomatic initiatives and European governments concerned about the implications of renewed economic engagement with Russia. European resistance to proposals to resume purchases of Russian natural gas reflects a broader concern that economic reintegration might give Moscow resources and political leverage before the underlying security conflict is resolved.

The issue extends beyond energy. European states must consider their dependence on American intelligence, military equipment, air-defence interceptors and other critical capabilities. There are delays affecting Patriot interceptor transfers purchased by European allies for Ukraine, alongside temporary interruptions in intelligence-sharing arrangements.

If such delays persist, they expose weaknesses in the Western alliance's existing distribution of responsibilities. Ukraine depends on timely assistance, while European governments must consider whether their own defence arrangements are sufficiently resilient to changes in American policy. One definitive consequence has been an emphasis on advocating greater European defence-industrial autonomy, which would involve expanding domestic production of precision weapons, air-defence interceptors, unmanned systems and other essential military supplies. It would also require stronger coordination among European defence establishments and more reliable arrangements for procurement, maintenance and delivery.

For Ukraine, a stronger European defence capacity would have two related benefits. First, it could provide a more dependable source of military assistance if American support became uncertain or completely cut off! Second, it could strengthen Europe's ability to sustain deterrence against Russia over the longer term.

NATO's eastern members also have reason to study the lessons emerging from Ukraine. Possible Russian pressure against the Baltic states and Russia's military ambitions must be considered alongside Europe's actual capacity to regenerate forces after heavy losses in Ukraine. Russia's current military commitments may constrain its ability to undertake additional large-scale operations, but those constraints should not be confused with the permanent disappearance of the threat. NATO knows that it has a limited period in which to strengthen its eastern defences, expand drone production and improve electronic warfare and counter-drone capabilities.

Ukraine's experience is therefore not merely a national tragedy or an isolated military contest. It is also a source of practical lessons for European defence planning. The technologies, command arrangements and logistical systems developed under Ukrainian battlefield conditions may influence how NATO members prepare for future conflicts.

China: Russia's economic lifeline and a strategic observer

China is another indispensable element in understanding the war's international context. Russia is increasingly dependent on Chinese industrial and technological inputs, including components relevant to military production. Furthermore, North Korean ammunition and armour deliveries are important contributions to Russia's capacity to sustain frontline operations.