As the world’s eyes turn to Beijing, a remarkable convergence of power is unfolding that could reshape the global order and the future of Ukraine’s war. On September 1, 2025, Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for a landmark meeting in the Chinese capital, marking the first time these three leaders have convened together. The gathering, as reported by Reuters, is widely interpreted as a show of solidarity among nations accused of aggression in Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two—and as a challenge to the Western-led international system.
This trilateral summit comes on the heels of a high-profile assembly in Tianjin, where Xi and Putin presented their vision for a new global security and economic order to over 20 leaders from non-Western countries. It’s no coincidence that this diplomatic choreography is timed just before a massive military parade in Beijing, set for September 3, to commemorate the end of World War Two. The presence of Iran’s president at the parade further signals a bold defiance of Western pressure, a coalition some analysts have dubbed the “Axis of Upheaval.”
“We must continue to take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practice true multilateralism,” Xi declared on Monday, in a pointed critique of the United States and its allies, according to Reuters. The statement underscores a growing rift: while former U.S. President Donald Trump touts his peacemaking credentials and pushes for talks with both Putin and Kim, China is steadily building alliances with states intent on challenging the status quo.
This development has immediate and profound implications for the ongoing war in Ukraine. North Korea, once a pariah even among its authoritarian peers, is now an active participant in the conflict. According to Reuters, Kim Jong Un has dispatched over 15,000 North Korean troops to support Russian operations in Ukraine, with around 600 soldiers reportedly dying in the Kursk region. South Korea’s intelligence agency warns that Pyongyang is planning further deployments. In 2024, Putin’s visit to Pyongyang—the first such summit in 24 years—was widely seen as an effort by Kim to reduce his dependence on Beijing and signal North Korea’s stake in the European conflict.
Meanwhile, China and India have continued to purchase Russian oil, providing Moscow with critical economic lifelines amid Western sanctions. This triangle of mutual support—military, economic, and diplomatic—raises the specter of a new axis that could alter the balance of power in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific.
For Ukraine, the stakes couldn’t be higher. As detailed in an analysis published on September 1, 2025, by New Eastern Europe, the war, now in its twelfth year (including four years of full-scale conflict since 2022), is fundamentally about identity and sovereignty. Russia’s strategic goal, the analysis asserts, is nothing less than the elimination of Ukrainian statehood and the assimilation of its people—a campaign that has involved the destruction of cultural sites and the mass abduction of children, actions that qualify as genocide under international law.
Despite Russia’s initial blitzkrieg failing in 2022, the war has devolved into a grinding war of attrition. Neither side holds a decisive advantage: Russia has managed to capture less than one percent of Ukrainian territory in the past year and a half, suffering enormous losses in the process. Ukraine, for its part, has not only repelled Russian advances but also displaced the Russian fleet from the Black Sea and struck deep into Russian military infrastructure using newly developed weapons systems. Civilian suffering remains acute, with approximately 4.5 million Ukrainians internally displaced and another 5.5 million living abroad as of 2025.
The United States has repeatedly floated peace proposals, but Russia has dismissed them, insisting that the “root cause of the war” is the very existence of an independent Ukraine. This hardline stance, coupled with the growing solidarity among Russia, China, and North Korea, complicates the prospects for a negotiated settlement.
Against this backdrop, Ukrainian and international analysts have mapped out a range of scenarios for how the war could end. Using a foresight approach that incorporates expert discussion, trend analysis, and scenario mapping, six distinct outcomes have been identified, each hinging on two key variables: whether global politics is governed by the rule of law or the rule of force, and whether Ukraine’s sovereignty is unrestricted, forcibly limited, or lost.
The most desirable scenario—“Victory and sustainable peace”—envisions a world where the rule of law prevails and Ukraine enjoys full sovereignty. In this future, Russia is punished, Ukraine’s territories are de-occupied, and the country embarks on rapid economic recovery, with GDP growth of 5 to 7 percent annually and the return of up to two million Ukrainians from abroad. European integration would accelerate, and optimism would fuel social cohesion and innovation. However, analysts caution that this scenario is unlikely in the short term, given the current balance of power and the support Russia receives from its new allies.
More probable, at least in the medium term, is the so-called “Rotten deal” scenario, where global rule of law is maintained but Ukraine’s sovereignty is forcibly limited. In this outcome, Ukraine retains formal statehood but is compelled to make painful concessions—potentially freezing the conflict along existing front lines and accepting limits on its foreign policy. While this would avert outright defeat, it risks fueling domestic resentment, stalling reforms, and slowing European integration. The economic outlook would be modest, with GDP growth of 1 to 3 percent and continued depopulation as uncertainty drives young people abroad.
At the other end of the spectrum lies the bleak possibility of Ukraine losing its sovereignty altogether, either through military defeat or international acquiescence to Russian demands. Such a scenario would see the imposition of a puppet regime, widespread repression, economic collapse, and mass emigration. The consequences would not be limited to Ukraine—analysts warn that sacrificing Ukraine to restore global order, as happened in 1917-1921, could embolden aggressors and destabilize Europe as a whole.
Other scenarios contemplate a world where the rule of force, rather than law, dominates. In one, Ukraine leverages its innovation and Western partnerships to survive as a resilient, if embattled, democracy—much like Israel. In another, the country endures as a weak, over-centralized state, its sovereignty circumscribed by Russian influence and global indifference.
What is clear from all these scenarios is that Ukraine’s fate will be shaped not just by events on the battlefield, but by the evolving alliances and rivalries among global powers. As trilateral military exercises between Russia, China, and North Korea appear increasingly likely, according to the National Bureau of Asian Research, the West faces mounting pressure to provide long-term security guarantees, sustainable funding, and robust technological cooperation to support Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction.
Ultimately, the choices made in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, Washington, and Brussels over the coming months will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The struggle is not just for territory, but for the principles that underpin the international system—a contest between the rule of law and the rule of force, with the future of Europe hanging in the balance.
