This text is a summary of the conference ‘Four Years of War in Ukraine: What Prospects for Peace and Transatlantic Security?’, held on 23 February 2026 at UQAM.
It has now been more than four years since the Russian-Ukrainian war began. During this period, Ukrainian forces have held the line against the Russian army, which has managed to capture only around 10% of the country’s territory. Many strategic positions are holding out against the invasion, whilst Russian forces are suffering heavy losses. Today, Russian advances are stalling, whilst Ukraine appears to be gradually regaining ground on its adversary.
The war does not appear to be nearing an end. On both sides, the armies are maintaining their capacity to resist, and a military collapse — whether Russian or Ukrainian — does not appear to be a likely prospect in the short term. It was against this backdrop that, on 23 February 2026, the Strategic Analysis Network organised a one-day conference to examine the state of the conflict, the prospects for peace negotiations and the challenges facing transatlantic security — two of the most defining issues of 2025.
The conference centred on two key questions: after four years of war and in light of the events of 2025, what are the prospects for peace in Ukraine? And what trajectories are emerging for transatlantic security and cooperation? Two thematic panels were organised to address these questions, supplemented by a presentation on the reality on the ground and the rise of drones — a veritable revolution in the conduct of modern warfare.
Prospects for peace: 2025, a year that reshuffles the deck?
1. Three major upheavals in 2025
The year 2025 was marked by profound changes. Donald Trump’s rise to power reshaped support for Ukraine, the prospects for peace and the dynamics of negotiations. Dominique Arel, professor at the University of Ottawa and director of the Chair in Ukrainian Studies, identified three major upheavals characterising this year.
Firstly, Donald Trump’s decision to suspend all US military aid forced Ukraine to source American weapons via Europe. Secondly, this rupture led to a realisation among NATO member states that they could no longer rely unconditionally on their American ally. Thirdly, a rupture in values has occurred between the United States and the founding principles of the Western alliance. These three transformations have profoundly shaken the stability of the transatlantic relationship and have complicated the issue of support for Ukraine. At the same time, 2025 was marked by a proliferation of peace ‘negotiation’ initiatives spearheaded by Donald Trump and the United States.
2. A sham negotiation
Throughout 2025, meetings between Russian and American representatives became increasingly frequent in an effort to discuss a way out of the war. However, can these exchanges really be described as negotiations? All the panellists expressed deep scepticism on this point.
For Dominique Arel, there have never been any genuine negotiations. The Russians speak to the Americans, who pass the message on to the Ukrainians, but no direct dialogue takes place between Moscow and Kyiv. Vladimir Putin appears to be seeking to negotiate by bypassing Ukraine and Europe, thereby blocking any substantial diplomatic progress. The result is a deadlock: no visible diplomatic breakthrough, a Ukraine under increasing American pressure, and a Russia that rejects any negotiation unless it is militarily constrained.
Emmanuelle Rousseau, a professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, shares this assessment. Attempts at negotiation did not begin in 2025 – they started in the very first days of the conflict – but 2025 saw a notable intensification, driven by Donald Trump’s campaign promises. Two formats have emerged: shuttle diplomacy, in which the United States acts as a messenger between Russia and Ukraine, and direct talks between the warring parties under US auspices.
Several factors structurally undermine these formats. Due to its support for Ukraine, the United States cannot claim to be a neutral mediator. Furthermore, Russian attempts to influence them have made the discussions even more biased. Added to this is Donald Trump’s personality-driven strategy, geared more towards diplomatic grandstanding than towards genuine negotiating effectiveness. Finally, the delegates present have no decision-making mandate, which prevents the building of mutual trust and the capacity for commitment. In terms of relations, Russia is systematically seeking to exclude Ukraine from the discussions and to sabotage any possible progress. According to Emmanuelle Rousseau, what is unfolding is more an attempt to impose an unwanted peace than a genuine negotiation process.
3. Ukrainian public opinion: between compromise and resistance
Maria Popova, a professor at McGill University, presented the results of opinion polls on the Ukrainian population’s views regarding security guarantees and prospects for peace. Compared to the start of the conflict, Ukrainians are now more inclined to consider certain compromises, notably a freeze on the front line. At the same time, they expect concrete security guarantees: the deployment of European troops, legally binding commitments, etc.
However, opposition remains firm in the face of Russian demands and Russian-American negotiation plans. Territorial concessions are deemed unacceptable by a large majority of the population. According to those surveyed, rewarding Russia would risk creating a temporary lull without reducing the security risk to Ukraine or Europe. A majority of Ukrainians still believe that Russia is pursuing a genocidal objective or aiming for the total annexation of the territory and the destruction of the Ukrainian state. In this context, a significant majority remains prepared to continue resisting rather than accept a peace perceived as unfavourable or precarious.
4. Prospects for war rather than peace
Vincent Tourret, a PhD candidate at UQAM, takes a similar view. Rather than speaking of prospects for peace, he suggests we should speak of prospects for war. Neither of the two belligerents is seriously considering entering into genuine negotiations, given their respective attitudes towards power and their theories of victory.
Vincent Tourret points out that power can be understood on three levels: resources (manpower, industrial capacity, armaments), effective power (what the battlefield actually reveals of these capabilities), and power as a paradigm of action (the way in which war transforms mindsets and means). Russia and Ukraine are continuing the conflict because their respective paradigms of action still allow them to envisage carrying on. Ukraine’s theory of victory is based on a strategy of attrition, whilst Russia operates according to a logic of maximum pressure. As long as the war remains perceived as ‘feasible’ on both sides, peace remains a distant prospect.
Drone proliferation: an inevitable phenomenon
Whilst the prospects of war remain at the heart of the debate, one phenomenon has taken on considerable importance in the conflict: the rise of drones and the drone proliferation on the battlefield. Faine Greenwood, a consultant for Tarentum Consulting LLC, has offered an analysis of this unavoidable phenomenon, from which several lessons can be drawn.
The war in Ukraine has seen a major paradigm shift: large, long-range drones have given way to smaller, less expensive aircraft operated in the immediate vicinity of the front line. This bottom-up approach – born of the initiative of units on the ground – has made drones versatile and indispensable tools: striking the enemy, gathering intelligence for other army corps, and providing logistical support. These aircraft, often derived from the civilian market and adapted to military needs, have transformed the dynamics of combat. Drone pilots are now priority targets, such is the decisive nature of their role.
This revolution began in the early months of the conflict, with Ukraine’s use of FPV kamikaze drones, which were quickly adopted by Russia — thus ushering in a game of cat and mouse. In 2024, Russia began integrating fibre optics to circumvent electromagnetic defence systems, a development that marked the years 2025 and 2026, particularly during the Ukrainian operation Spiderweb. These technologies significantly extend the lethal zone along the front line.
This phenomenon extends beyond the borders of the conflict in Ukraine: militarised drones are now being used in Syria, Sudan and Mexico for a variety of purposes. This revolution challenges the traditional paradigms of the war on terror and offers fundamental lessons for the rearmament efforts of allied nations
Transatlantic security and cooperation: what are the challenges?
1. Europe Facing the Challenge of Re-armament
The war in Ukraine is having profound repercussions on the European security architecture. Coupled with uncertainties regarding the US stance, it places Europe and NATO in a complex situation. David Cadier highlighted the considerable challenges facing Europe, not only during the conflict, but above all once it ends.
Should the war come to an end, Russia would remain hostile towards Europe, and its military, forged by the experience of the conflict, would likely be more formidable than in 2022. Yet European countries are only at the very beginning of a rearmament effort. The challenges ahead are considerable: deterring Russia from any further aggression, ensuring Ukraine’s security by all available means, and managing the risks inherent in European rearmament itself. The regional order will evolve towards the formation of two militarised blocs, which requires precisely defining the dividing line, identifying potential violations and preparing for them.
2. US strategies and their implications for NATO
Alexander Lanoszka, a professor at the University of Waterloo, outlined the various scenarios for the evolution of the US stance towards Europe. Three main options are emerging.
The first is that of an autocratic partnership, in which the United States would join forces with Russia and China to divide up spheres of global influence. This option risks provoking a sense of abandonment among NATO members, pushing them to organise themselves autonomously, whilst creating rifts within the alliance. The second option is ‘wedging’ – increased cooperation between Russia and the US to put pressure on China. The risk of abandonment would be more moderate, but the concessions required for cooperation with Russia appear unrealistic, which would undermine the European rearmament project. The third option is an aggressive US stance towards China and Russia, which could turn European allies into zones of confrontation or targets. In this scenario, dependence on Washington would decrease thanks to burden-sharing, but disagreements over the strategy of confrontation could dampen the drive towards European autonomy. These three scenarios have major implications for transatlantic cooperation and will shape relations between the United States and its allies for the long term.
3. The European Union Facing a Paradigm Shift
Chantal Lavallée, a lecturer at the Royal Military College of Saint-Jean, highlighted the paradigm shift currently underway at European level. The war in Ukraine has led the European Union to shift from a liberal vision to a more realistic approach to security. The need to invest in defence is being felt at both institutional and national levels: increased defence budgets, the lifting of taboos, and the reopening of fundamental debates — including in Ireland on neutrality and participation in collective rearmament.
Thus, the EU is embarking on its own rearmament drive with a target date of 2030, without, however, abandoning the transatlantic trajectory, which remains crucial despite the development of autonomous capabilities. For Canada, joining the SAFE programme represents an opportunity to strengthen its ties with its European partners.
4. Canada and the reshaping of the transatlantic order
Jonathan Paquin, Director of the École supérieure d’études internationales, identified four key points for understanding the future of transatlantic security from a Canadian perspective.
Firstly, it is worth revisiting the systemic transformations currently underway. Before Trump, the international order was based on a logic of US-centred liberal hegemony, which had long enjoyed the support of the international community. From the moment the US president rejected this logic, the fundamental principles of the order began to crumble, creating profound uncertainty about the system’s future.
In this context, NATO has been weakened. Trust between member states and Washington has eroded to such an extent that some allies doubt the robustness of the security guarantees offered by the alliance. For Canada, this development is particularly worrying: its deterrence posture has long relied on NATO and the US nuclear umbrella, in a world where the United States was perceived as benevolent. Yet the main source of uncertainty now stems from the American neighbour itself.
Jonathan Paquin expresses serious doubts about the ability and willingness of NATO allies to defend Canada if necessary — the alliance’s perceived timid response to the statements on Greenland is, in his view, a telling illustration of this. Consequently, Canada must no longer view NATO as an automatic guarantee, but rather as a negotiating platform to be actively engaged with Washington to ensure it continues to serve Canadian interests. The current crisis certainly echoes the post-Cold War debates on the alliance’s relevance, but NATO has weathered similar crises in the past, and a premature collapse cannot be anticipated.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the panelists reiterated that the so-called “peace” talks currently underway cannot truly be considered as such. They are more akin to failed attempts, due to the absence of the necessary diplomatic conditions and the biased role played by the United States in these formats. Since both belligerents’ capacity to continue the conflict remain intact, neither side seems ready to resolutely commit to peace negotiations: the logic of continued fighting prevails, and for Ukraine, the nation’s survival is paramount.
On a transatlantic level, the war in Ukraine has profoundly reshaped international relations, a dynamic further accelerated by the arrival of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2025. All participants agreed, however, that we are only at the beginning of a major transformation that will reshape the transatlantic and European balance of power for many years to come.
Comments are closed.