Only by transcending the “winner-loser” mindset and exploring a binding solution that is fair, enduring and acceptable to all parties can countries finally rebuild a balanced, effective and sustainable European security framework based on the concept of community.

Today’s international order is shaped by “orbital bipolarity,” dominated by the United States and China, with secondary powers navigating their influence; Europe is limited in its role, China acts cautiously, Russia capitalizes on Western hesitation, and Ukraine remains trapped in the conflict.

As the endgame looms over the proxy war in Ukraine, the catastrophic costs of the unwarranted conflict continue to soar. There was an alternative future for Ukraine, based on development. But it was purposely denied.

The Alaska Summit signals a revival of major power coordination, with Europe determined not to forsake the peace dividends it has accrued over the decades. Seasoned by centuries of geopolitical maneuvering, European powers are poised to actively shape their own destinies rather than succumb to the will of others.

The war in Ukraine grinds on into its fourth year, and yet peace seems elusive. American President Donald Trump recently met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska. Some hailed this as a breakthrough; others derided it as Trump being “played.”

While presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both got something out of the virtual bust, Europe and Ukraine are actually relieved that they failed to reach an agreement. This not only preserves Europe’s dignity but keeps the door open for future negotiations.

Actual improvement of the bilateral relationship between the United States an Russia should be helpful in ending the war in Ukraine. Virtually any effort that facilitates sustainable peace is worthy of China’s support. So the meeting in Alaska does not need to be interpreted as unproductive.

The summit could mark a turning point in U.S.-Russia relations and lead to a rewriting of the geopolitical playbook. For China, the lesson is that it must hold fast to its principles, maintain strategic composure and pursue its interests on its own terms.

The logic underpinning the U.S. president’s approach to war and peace looks at international conflicts as being subject to transactional pricing mechanisms. In the short run, this strategy can yield results, but its long-term sustainability remains deeply uncertain.

Many in the West think Sino-Russian ties are the key to a resolution of the conflict. But this is a significant strategic misjudgment. Any durable peace in Ukraine must be found through negotiations between the parties directly involved.