The war in Ukraine is deep into its third year, and the country is paying a price far heavier than any Western promise can repay. The Alaska meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could be a turning point. Not for victory, but for survival.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not be there. His absence is symbolic. Decisions about Ukraine’s future are now being shaped elsewhere. Zelensky’s greatest mistake was steering Ukraine into NATO’s orbit, knowing it would provoke Moscow and ignite a confrontation Ukraine could never win on its own. NATO expansion was the red line. The West knew it. Russia made it clear. Yet Zelensky pushed forward, encouraged by promises from Washington and Brussels. Those promises have proven to be weapons without guarantees, aid without security. Ukraine is now the battleground of a proxy war aimed at weakening Russia, at the expense of Ukrainian lives, land, and future.

Ukraine once shared more than just a border with Russia. For centuries, their histories, cultures, and languages intertwined. Millions of Ukrainians speak Russian as their mother tongue. Much of the country’s infrastructure, trade, and industrial base was built during the Soviet era, when cooperation was not confrontation but the norm. That relationship could have been preserved after independence, making Ukraine a bridge between East and West. Instead, Kyiv became the front line of a geopolitical game.

Now, the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin could signal a different path, one that acknowledges reality. If Ukraine is to have peace, it may mean accepting the loss of certain territories now under Russian control. This is the “price for peace.” The phrase “piece for peace” captures the uncomfortable truth, but sometimes a portion of land must be given up to stop further destruction.

A settlement, even one that involves territorial concessions, could allow Ukraine to rebuild its economy, repopulate its towns, and recover its independence in practice, if not entirely on paper. This would not mean turning its back on the West entirely, but it would mean recognizing that lasting stability requires a functional relationship with Russia. Given the shared language, culture, and history, Ukraine could have been a bridge between East and West. Instead, Zelensky’s government chose to burn that bridge.

Now the question is whether a new one can be built, before the entire foundation crumbles.

The Alaska summit may be the best chance yet to end the bloodshed. It will require courage from leaders to accept imperfect peace. For Ukraine, that courage means facing the hard truth, peace may come at the cost of a piece of territory. But the cost of continuing down the current path will be far higher.

Donald Trump has said more than once that Ukraine should be ready to give up some territory to achieve peace. That idea, however painful, might be the only path left. If Alaska produces an agreement to end hostilities, it will likely include territorial concessions, what could be called a “piece for peace.” Without that, the war could drag on for years, exhausting Ukraine’s population, economy, and military until there is little left to save.

Zelensky has rejected any deal involving territorial loss, insisting that peace cannot be achieved by surrendering land. The EU and UK have echoed his position. That makes the Alaska meeting controversial, negotiations about Ukraine’s fate are being held without Ukraine’s own president at the table. Critics will call this surrender. But is it surrender to choose survival over ruin? Ukraine’s leadership must weigh whether continuing the fight truly serves its people’s long-term interests. Every month of war brings new graves, deeper economic collapse, and more young Ukrainians leaving the country for good. The promise of NATO membership is distant. The hope of recovering every inch of territory may be impossible without risking total collapse.

If the meeting fails to produce a ceasefire or a clear path to end the war, amid zelensky and EU members being against giving up the territories, the consequences could be dire. Russia may consolidate its hold on occupied regions. Western support may waver as public fatigue and economic strain grow. Ukraine’s battlefield losses may deepen beyond repair. And the chance for a negotiated settlement, however imperfect may disappear entirely.

Peace will almost certainly require compromise. For Ukraine, that may mean accepting the loss of some land to save the rest of the country. Continuing the war without a path to victory is not bravery, it is national suicide. History will not remember the exact borders. It will remember whether there was still a Ukraine for its people to call home.

Ukraine can still have a future, but not if it insists on fighting to the last brick. Territorial concessions are not the end of independence, they can be the beginning of survival.