President Trump’s closing quip on February 28 that his joint press conference with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy “made for great television” was no exaggeration. Never has the Oval Office hosted such a blunt and public exchange of hostilities – particularly between nations that consider themselves allies. In the days leading up to the encounter, many in Kyiv had hoped Washington would reaffirm its military and financial commitments. But it didn’t take long for reality to set in that this meeting was anything but a show of solidarity. Instead, Zelenskyy found himself caught in a spectacle that laid bare deep fractures within the alliance – and the potential end of Western unity. 

Most commentators were quick to condemn the clash as a grave betrayal of a long-standing partnership, while Trump’s loyal MAGA base framed it as long-overdue proof that the new administration is finally putting “America First.” Some even suggest that the confrontation was provoked, while others cite Kissinger’s old adage that “being America’s enemy is dangerous, but being its friend is fatal.” Whatever the cause and circumstance, the resultant rift between Washington and Kyiv raises urgent questions about the future of the war in Ukraine – and, more broadly, the stability of Europe’s security order.

In an attempt to answer the question of what comes next, we explore four possible trajectories for Ukraine’s future, Russian influence, and Europe’s role:

• Zelensky Caves: Scenario one sees the Ukrainian President return to Washington under weakened conditions, ultimately conceding that significant parts of Ukraine will de-facto remain under Russian control in order to facilitate a U.S.-brokered deal.
• End of the Western Alliance: Scenario two imagines a European peace plan that coaxes a skeptical Trump administration into minimal support. A fragile ceasefire collapses when Russia probes Western resolve, putting the continent on the brink of war and Europeans begging for U.S. help. Back at the negotiation table, Trump compels Ukraine to accept major concessions, infuriating European leaders, who vow to forge an autonomous defense. NATO effectively unravels as Trump demands economic gains and strategic leverage, including control over Greenland. 
• Vichy: Scenario three envisions the Ukrainian President having overplayed his hand and American aid not only evaporates but any intelligence sharing is halted by the Trump administration. Europe fails to get the U.S. back on board, while hopes fade in Kyiv, and a number of oligarchs launch a coup, sending Zelenskyy into exile. A subsequent puppet regime brings Ukraine back in Russia’s sphere of influence.
• Beijing Surprise: Scenario four posits the continuation of a war of attrition, though with a surprising turn in which China, upon Europe’s backchannel urgings, brokers a tenuous peace deal, capitalizing on the power vacuum left by the United States.

Scenario 1: Zelenskyy Caves

After a tense meeting in the Oval Office, President Zelenskyy refuses to apologize and the once-robust relationship between Kyiv and Washington unravels almost overnight. Zelenskyy left Washington empty-handed and soon receives notice that the Trump administration not only has ended all military and financial aid but also orders the halt of intelligence sharing with the Ukrainian military. While Kyiv had hoped Europe could increase its assistance, Ukrainian decision-makers quickly discover the limitations of European capabilities, particularly in the intelligence realm. Europeans also fear that without an agreed U.S. backup, an escalatory spiral would ignite and lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and the European Union. This posture leaves Ukraine stranded on the international stage, just as the war’s toll on its people and economy grows heavier by the day.

Amid mounting pressure at home, where public opinion starts to fracture and political infighting intensifies, Zelenskyy faces a harrowing realization: without sustained American intelligence sharing and increased military assistance from Europe, the prospects of countering continuing Russian advances will evaporate. Growing segments of the Ukrainian elite – political insiders, influential oligarchs, and key business leaders – warn that persisting in a protracted conflict could invite economic collapse. High-level advisors in Zelenskyy’s presidential administration share private assessments that the country cannot survive a prolonged period cut off from robust Western support, especially if Americans remain on the sidelines.

Gradually Zelenskyy starts to weigh what was initially unthinkable after the humiliation during his trip to the United States: re-engaging with Washington on Washington’s terms. Following European demands, Zelenskyy’s government, carefully and quietly, sends out signals that they are willing to re-enter negotiations, if the American President can be persuaded to restore aid. Trump, sensing his leverage, insists that the Kremlin play a prominent role in any new framework. Subsequently, the White House and Moscow craft a proposed “peace deal,” which all but formalizes Russia’s hold on territories it has seized. In the arrangement, Ukraine is forced to acknowledge current territorial realities, end its desire for NATO membership and make defense and economic concessions to mollify Russia’s security concerns.

A significantly weakened Zelenskyy is willing to sign any agreement that ends hostilities and saves the Ukrainian state from collapsing. Outrage erupts on the streets of Kyiv and beyond, with nationalist and pro-democracy groups denouncing the deal as a betrayal of Ukraine’s national interests.

Scenario 2: End of the Western Alliance

Zelenskyy knew for weeks that any negotiated settlement with Washington would all but require Ukraine to de-facto concede parts of its territory to Russian control. Determined to avoid such a compromise and resolved to turn the trip into a defining moment, he saw the Oval Office meeting with President Trump as an opportunity for his personal Hail Mary – a stunt dramatic enough to compel the Europeans to break their cautious stance and commit to Ukraine in earnest, despite or precisely because of American abandonment. Zelenskyy knew which buttons to push, allowing frustrations to spill over into a public rift. Despite the humiliation of leaving Washington practically empty-handed, the spectacle achieves its strategic purpose: it jolts Europe into realizing that with the United States stepping back and President Trump washing his hands of Zelenskyy, the responsibility of assisting Ukraine would fall squarely on its shoulders.

Recognizing that America’s withdrawal from the conflict could spell not only disaster for Ukraine but also grave insecurity for the entire continent, British Prime Minister Starmer, French President Macron, and other European leaders hammer out a “peace plan” to offer to the Trump administration. European troops would police a brokered ceasefire so long as the United States guaranteed a backstop, that ensured intelligence sharing and other support. Trump vacillates but eventually agrees, clarifying though that there would be no American boots on the ground to bail out the Europeans, if they got into trouble. Britain and France agree to go ahead, while Germany will make a decision after a new government is formed. Pressured by the Americans, Putin goes ahead with a ceasefire, and reluctantly agrees to British, French, and other European peacekeepers. A ceasefire appears to be holding until Moscow issues a series of ominous statements, accusing the Europeans of arming the Ukrainians and urging them to restart the fighting, all of which are untrue.

Europeans are right to fear that the Russian warnings amount to a pretext for renewing the conflict, which soon restarts. With European guidance, the Ukrainians stall the Russian offensive but notice that Starlink, which is critical for frontline intelligence, is no longer operating.  Despite Ukrainians’ military success, President Trump announces that U.S. air support is too dangerous and withdraws it. Frantic to get the American to reverse their decision, Europeans find out that Washington and Moscow have instead agreed to a new, alternative peace plan, pulling the rug from under the European effort. Rumors circulate of increased Russian troop movements and European intelligence agencies detect signs of heightened readiness in Russian missile units and air defense systems. Fearing the outbreak of a wider war, European capitals have no other choice than to end support for the Ukrainian fighting and accept the Russian-U.S. terms for ending conflict, which include territorial concessions, strict neutrality, and a demilitarized Ukraine.    

The 75-year-old NATO Alliance is effectively ended on the European side while Trump believes he has Europe under his thumb and demands economic concessions from Brussels and military control of Greenland. Half a year later, news broke that U.S. firms are back allowed into Russia, helping Moscow to increase drilling in the Arctic.

Scenario 3: Vichy

When President Zelenskyy left the United States, he was convinced that his behavior had demonstrated unwavering resolve in the face of an increasingly difficult American administration. What he didn’t fully anticipate was the severity of President Trump’s response. Instead of a cooling-off period and a return to the bargaining table, it doesn’t take the White House long to impose an immediate freeze of intelligence sharing that gave the Ukrainians an advantage on the front lines. Suddenly, the resources and capabilities that had sustained Kyiv’s defense for three years vanish, leaving Zelenskyy scrambling for alternatives.

Initial hopes that the Europeans would replace the gap left by the American pullout are shattered, as Paris, London, and Berlin are unwilling to risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Their measured commitments of logistical support and training programs do too little to replace the hefty American aid packages and intelligence sharing that had once flowed freely. In private corridors, European officials express sympathy for Ukraine’s plight but underscore their aversion to getting drawn into a potential war with Russia—especially without a U.S. backstop.

After an Anglo-French peace proposal, hashed out in the aftermath of the London Summit, is dismissed by the White House, the situation deteriorates rapidly within Ukraine. The front lines are increasingly under strain, as military operations find themselves understaffed, underfunded, and lacking advanced weaponry. Meanwhile, ordinary Ukrainians, already weary from years of conflict and economic hardship, grow frustrated with what they see as a deteriorating security environment and stagnant political leadership. The blame falls squarely on Zelenskyy: he has lost America’s patronage and failed to organize the rescue from Europeans. Once staunchly loyal, dissatisfaction within the armed forces begins to simmer, fueled by an acute sense of betrayal and unfulfilled promises of victory.

With Russia intensifying its attacks, a total collapse of the front lines is only a question of time and high-ranking military officers start drafting contingency plans behind closed doors. Their whispered strategy centers on the belief that Zelenskyy’s continuation in power will ultimately doom Ukraine to further humiliation or, worse, open the door to a collapse of the state itself. As powerful oligarchs are conceiving of a plan to oust Zelensky and replace him with a Russia-friendly leader, the military signals not to interfere with a coup attempt.

Unable to placate the military brass or secure any renewed assistance from the West, Zelenskyy senses that the walls are closing in. Rumors circulate of an imminent coup, and he realizes that if he stays in Kyiv, his very life could be in danger. Under the guise of another diplomatic trip, Zelenskyy flees the country and seeks refuge in London. In the power vacuum he leaves behind, a consortium of senior military, political, and oligarch figures steps in to “restore order.” Led by those that had quietly opened back-channel communications with Moscow, the new regime wastes no time in announcing its intention to negotiate a swift end to hostilities. They denounce Zelenskyy’s leadership as reckless and portray themselves as pragmatists prepared to strike a comprehensive peace deal—even one that might include conceding the four occupied provinces to Russia and formally abandoning aspirations to join NATO. The new rulers in Kyiv are the Vichy type puppet regime that Moscow wanted all along. It puts Ukraine back in Russia’s sphere of influence.

Scenario 4: Beijing Surprise

Dismayed by the abrupt rift with Washington and Europe’s inability to step up, the war of attrition continues. However, before too long, Zelenskyy finds a surprising new mediator for Ukraine’s future: China. As the Kremlin grows bolder and the United States hints at stepping away from the conflict altogether, Beijing steps in, offering itself as a more neutral arbiter, capable of reigning in both Moscow and Kyiv. Although Zelenskyy initially hesitates to trust a power with its own global ambitions, he cannot ignore the prospect of a negotiation table that at least promises to halt the escalating crisis. For Beijing, brokering an accord in Europe is a golden opportunity to project itself as a responsible stakeholder – and to advance its own strategic and economic interests across the region at a time when transatlantic unity is no more.

Initially hesitant, Russian officials are exploring the opportunity that by engaging through China, they can sideline Europe and the United States, limiting the influence of NATO in shaping any settlement. A framework along the following lines emerges: The negotiations prioritize an immediate freeze of military operations and a gradual drawdown along contested front lines. Under this plan, Russia effectively cements control over occupied territories, though questions of formal recognition remain deliberately vague. More controversially, Ukraine’s aspirations toward NATO and closer Western integration are shelved indefinitely, as Beijing insists that the only path to peace is to neutralize what it calls “geopolitical provocations” in Russia’s backyard.

China sweetens the deal by promising extensive economic support and reconstruction funds to Ukraine, tying these, however, to stringent oversight by Chinese financial institutions. While the prospect of rebuilding war-torn cities holds obvious appeal for Kyiv, critics worry about a subtle trade-off: in exchange for immediate relief, Ukraine risks trading a measure of its sovereignty. Chinese experts and investors – ostensibly there to oversee reconstruction – could gain considerable influence over Ukraine’s economy and infrastructure in the long run.

Western reaction to the peace deal is muted relief. European leaders conclude that the Trump administration can’t be trusted and transatlantic ties are broken. Privately, some European decision-makers fear that China’s sudden leadership in European security matters could reshape the continent’s geopolitical landscape, but publicly, they applaud any step that curbs the violence. Meanwhile, Washington issues ambiguous statements congratulating “all parties” on de-escalation, without committing to meaningful oversight or continued support. NATO members in Eastern Europe are especially alarmed, worried that the balance of power may have shifted eastward, and that the alliance’s deterrence credibility is beginning to fray.

Inside Ukraine, the immediate cessation of open hostilities provides a reprieve, allowing civilians to hope for some semblance of normal life. But the price is steep. Animosity grows among those who see Beijing’s role as a self-serving gambit that leaves their country’s borders redrawn in practice. Nationalists, in particular, condemn the arrangement as a capitulation, arguing that China’s involvement amounts to an external power brokering Ukraine’s future for its own economic gain. Zelenskyy, caught between relief that the shelling has stopped and discomfort at the cost of acceptance, finds his political standing fragile.

In Moscow, there is fear that China has assumed a de-facto veto on Russia’s foreign policy, even if the deal favors Russia’s interests. The settlement deepens the Kremlin’s dependence on Beijing – an irony that some Russian officials lament, recognizing they have traded away their independence for becoming China’s vassal.