In Ukraine the war shows no sign of loosening its grip. On the night between October 4 and 5, 110 Italian activists returning from Kharkiv witnessed from their train a massive bombardment targeting Lviv. The convoy, part of the tenth mission of Mean – European Movement for Nonviolent Action, which had been in the country for meetings with Ukrainian civil society, managed to reach the Polish border despite the explosions along the route. “We experienced what people in Ukraine feel every day: living constantly with terror, with the need to flee, with the fear of seeing your home explode,” Angelo Moretti of Mean told ANSA.

Against this backdrop of a war that offers no respite, international diplomacy struggles to regain momentum. Since the mid-August talks in Alaska between the United States and Russia, expectations have swung between hope and fear. To better understand what these developments mean for Ukraine and for Europe, we spoke with Professor Oleksii Kolesnykov, a Ukrainian political scientist and visiting researcher at EURAC, who lives and works in Estonia, where we reached him by phone.“A month and a half after the Alaska meeting, the peace process shows little progress beyond a major prisoner exchange,” says Prof. Oleksii Kolesnykov. “Russia continues ground offensives and has intensified airstrikes, while Ukraine strikes Russian oil and military industries and holds defensive lines. No official negotiations have taken place since the last Istanbul meeting in the summer, and U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently confirmed that Russia has refused all bilateral and trilateral talks.”

According to Kolesnykov, the political landscape has also shifted. “Donald Trump’s rhetoric has changed remarkably. His earlier claim that Ukraine had ‘no cards’ has given way to statements affirming that Ukraine could ‘win back’ all its territories and portraying Russia as a ‘paper tiger.’ This coincides with the first deliveries of U.S. weapons purchased by European allies, as well as Russian provocations with drones and fighter jets in Poland, the Baltics, and Scandinavia. U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has also affirmed that Ukraine has the right to strike deep inside Russian territory.”

For Kolesnykov, these developments suggest not progress toward peace but rather the opposite. “What we are seeing is a growing risk of escalation in the Russo-Ukrainian war, rather than meaningful steps forward.”

This sober assessment frames his wider reflections on Ukraine’s future. While he acknowledges that the chances for some kind of peace have grown slightly, he insists they remain slim. “Both sides are exhausted,” he says. “Ukraine lacks manpower and weapons, while Russia has made only minimal territorial gains at enormous cost. That creates incentives for a truce. But Russia still believes it can achieve more in the coming months and sets demands Ukraine cannot accept. Unless Moscow lowers its expectations, compromise is unlikely. At best, we might see a ceasefire, not a lasting settlement.”

For Kolesnykov, the war was never just about land. “This is existential. Russia’s real goal was to destroy Ukraine as a state. Since they failed, they now seek symbolic gains to show their population—Donbass, for example. But territories are not sacred. The bigger issue is people. Losing citizens is far worse than losing territory. A strong state can regain land later, like Azerbaijan did with Karabakh after thirty years, but without people Ukraine cannot survive.” He worries about depopulation and the lack of balance between working citizens and pensioners. “The country must focus on bringing people back, keeping them engaged, and building a modern state. That’s the real priority.”

Inside Ukraine, politics remains frozen. Elections cannot be held under martial law, even though both parliament and the presidency are past their terms. “If a ceasefire comes, a window would open,” Kolesnykov explains. “Figures like Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief, are very popular. If he ran for president, no one knows whether he would pursue war or peace. Everything could change. But until then, political life is on hold.”

Ukraine’s survival, however, does not depend only on its internal politics. “We are totally dependent on U.S. weapons,” Kolesnykov says. “Without Patriots, Russian missiles would strike their targets. That gives Trump enormous leverage. He might try to push Ukraine into a quick deal, partly for his own ambitions. But there is an alternative: Europe buying weapons from the U.S. and transferring them to Ukraine. It’s profitable for Washington, so it’s sustainable. Still, Ukraine failed to build a wartime economy. We rely entirely on Western money and arms, and that makes us vulnerable.”

Living in Estonia, he sees how the war reverberates across Europe. “Putin’s ambitions go beyond Ukraine. The Baltics know this, which is why they support us so strongly. As long as Russia is busy in Ukraine, they feel safe. But if the war freezes, the risk to them grows. NATO’s Article 5 is not as reliable as it once was—public opinion in some European countries shows doubt about defending places like Estonia. That’s why governments here are preparing seriously. In Estonia, civilians get brochures with instructions for emergencies, even apps for civil defense. Fighter jets patrol the skies constantly. Europe must build its own defense capacities, because the U.S. under Trump cannot be relied upon.”

Diplomacy still matters, he insists. “Trump cannot act alone. Sanctions and political tools only work when the U.S. and Europe act together. Europe’s unity during Zelensky’s visit to Washington was very important. It makes it harder for Trump to undermine Ukraine. And if diplomacy fails, Europe can still sustain the war effort by buying American weapons and transferring them to Ukraine, or by tapping into agreements like those on Ukraine’s mineral resources to fund defense.”

Some in Europe suggest autonomy arrangements, like South Tyrol’s bilingual model, as a possible blueprint for Donbass. Kolesnykov knows the region well—he has spent time in Bolzano and studied its system of governance—but he rejects the comparison. “South Tyrol is a beautiful model, but there is no foreign aggressor there. In Ukraine, Russia uses cultural and religious issues as tools of influence. The Moscow Patriarchate has even been involved in espionage. Autonomy would only be exploited by Moscow. It’s simply not applicable.”

As the conversation draws to a close, Kolesnykov returns to what he sees as the central issue. “Territories are not sacred. People are. Ukraine must focus on its citizens, on stabilizing the economy, on building resilience. Only then will it be strong enough to face the future—whether that means reclaiming lost land or resisting new threats. That is the real task ahead.”