JPMorgan Chase’s Center for Geopolitics recently published a significant study analyzing the possible outcomes of the ongoing Ukraine conflict, offering a nuanced assessment that highlights the challenges of reaching a resolution acceptable to all parties involved. In a May 2025 report titled “The Russia-Ukraine Endgame and the Future of Europe,” Derek Chollet and Lisa Sawyer, both former officials under the Biden administration, laid out four key scenarios that could shape Ukraine’s future. These range from a “South Korea” model, which involves a substantial European military presence and U.S. security guarantees, to a dire “Belarus” scenario characterised by Ukraine’s complete capitulation to Moscow.
The report’s authors prioritise what they call the “Georgia” scenario—a deal likely devoid of foreign troops or explicit security guarantees—assigning it a 50% probability. This outcome would see Ukraine receive some reconstruction assistance but stop short of integration into the European Union or NATO, ultimately pushing Kyiv closer into Russia’s orbit economically and politically. This scenario entails hard compromises on territorial and trade issues, sanctions relief measures, and a NATO step-back, which presents ideological difficulties for European allies firmly committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The “South Korea” model, perceived as the best case with a 15% chance, envisages Ukraine retaining about 80% of its territory but underpinned by a tripwire military presence from Europe and backed by U.S. security assurances. This outcome would potentially utilise roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction. However, the authors argue this approach is unlikely to be acceptable to Russia, due to its territorial and security implications, and could perpetuate instability with the war reigniting as a broader European conflict.
The second scenario, dubbed “Israel,” also with a 20% probability, foresees no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil and accepts that conflict remains a continual risk at Ukraine’s borders. Russian sanctions relief might be included, but Ukraine would require reliable arms supplies, financial support, and economic integration guarantees to endure under these conditions. The complex political landscape in the U.S., where any security or financial guarantees would require treaty backing and congressional approval, poses additional hurdles for such commitments.
The most pessimistic outcome, the “Belarus” scenario, envisages American abandonment of Ukraine and insufficient European support, culminating in Russia imposing a total capitulation and turning Ukraine into a vassal state. This scenario, assigned a 15% chance, reflects the starkest breakdown in the conflict’s resolution and underscores the high stakes of diplomatic negotiations.
Amid these analytical forecasts, recent events suggest active diplomatic engagement may be shaping developments on the ground. Steve Witkoff, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, has made multiple high-profile visits to Russia this year, meeting twice with President Vladimir Putin to discuss possible avenues for peace. Kremlin officials described these talks as “constructive and very useful,” focusing on resuming direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. Witkoff’s visit to Moscow in early August 2025 was confirmed by U.S. State Department sources, though details remain under wraps. This visit comes at a time when President Trump has publicly pressed Putin for tangible progress toward resolving the conflict, threatening stronger sanctions if results are not forthcoming.
Witkoff’s role, however, has been met with scepticism and criticism from experts and journalists, who question the envoy’s understanding of the conflict and warn that his efforts might favour terms unfavourable to Ukraine’s sovereignty. Some of his statements echo Kremlin narratives and have been welcomed by Russian media, prompting concerns about the potential consequences of imposing a ceasefire deal without broadly agreed conditions.
The JPMorgan report and recent diplomatic exchanges together reveal an evolving but uncertain endgame for the Ukraine war. While optimistic “best case” scenarios remain on the table, the growing likelihood points toward a complex, mixed settlement resembling the “Georgia” model—one that limits foreign military presence and formal guarantees, while leaving Ukraine’s future closely tied to Russia’s sphere of influence. As Witkoff’s meetings with Russian officials continue, the world watches closely whether these diplomatic efforts will materialise into a sustainable resolution or further entrench divisions in the region.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
