Mykola Kapitonenko, with his characteristic skepticism, explained the improbability of achieving swift peace in Ukraine, even if a ceasefire agreement were signed. In his view, even if international partners impose certain terms for peace on Ukraine, the agreement will likely be unstable and temporary. The structure of the conflict, proxy war conditions, and the high political cost of concessions in the era of nationalism all contribute to the conflict's protracted nature.
Dmytro Tuzhanskyi emphasized that the "key to peace" lies in Moscow. In his opinion, from Putin’s perspective, Trump and the USA are not mediators in the war but primary players in a major geopolitical game. He noted that Ukraine’s strategy should be short-term, focusing on events after January 20—the U.S. presidential inauguration date.
Iliia Kusa commented on the swift collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, a partner of Russia. According to him, this event will not significantly influence Ukraine's situation. He also suggested that a possible ceasefire in 2025 will not equate to achieving peace but will mark a shift to a new relationship phase with Russia.
Iryna Dudko explored the potential implications of Trump's return to power. She highlighted Trump as a political phenomenon and stressed the importance of considering the influence of U.S. career bureaucracies and Congress, which plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy.
Ivan Nahorniak noted that the EU is undergoing serious transformation today. Discussions on joint defense policies and including Ukraine in the sixth cluster of negotiations on security issues indicate that Ukraine is perceived as a state capable of strengthening the European Union.