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.

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.

Second round of Trump-Putin engagement incorporates elements of strategic deterrence but has failed to resolve the conflict. That’s because the war reflects a deeper struggle over institutions, grand strategy and competing value systems.

US Vice President J.D. Vance recently tried to cast President Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as a wildly successful example of the “Trump Doctrine.” According to Vance, the doctrine is simple: you identify a problem that threatens US interests, which “you try to aggressively diplomatically solve.” If diplomacy fails, “you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”

Amid the uncertainty of U.S. domestic affairs and the evolving international order, the transatlantic relationship — despite its apparent stability — is likely to experience undercurrents of discontent in the years ahead.

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.

The second Trump administration’s China policies have thus far been very opaque and difficult to discern. However, in recent weeks a variety of indicators are beginning to make them clearer—and one dominant theme emerges: China will be viewed as America’s principal adversary.