Moscow no longer talks about concessions. Instead, it talks about buffer zones - which in diplomatic language means territories it has no intention of returning. According to sources close to the Kremlin, Russia plans to permanently keep parts of the Sumy and Kharkiv regions as a „protective belt”, and will only sit down for talks once it fully controls the Donetsk region.

The shift is clear. If until recently there were signals that Russia might consider territorial concessions in exchange for peace, those signals have gone out. The cause, it is claimed, is the sharp messages from Washington and the collapsed informal agreements from the Alaska summit itself between Putin and Trump last August.

The dispute over what was actually agreed in Alaska is still going on. Secretary of State Rubio said on 25 June that „there were proposals, but there was no agreement”. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov shot back that an agreement on proposals is de facto an agreement. When the two sides cannot agree even on what happened at a single meeting, it is hard to expect an agreement on the fate of entire regions.

And that fate is bloodily concrete. Russia is demanding that Ukraine hand over the entire Donetsk region - including territories the Russian army has not captured since 2014. In other words, it is demanding the surrender of land it has not even taken on the ground. One source from the Ministry of Defence estimates that full control over Donetsk would be possible by the end of 2026; another says 2027 is more credible.

In the meantime, the war does not wait for diplomacy. Ukraine has carried out strikes deep in Russian territory, including hits on Moscow and refineries. The talks have stood frozen since February. Every month that passes is a month in which the borders are drawn by the front line, not by the negotiating table.

For the Balkans, which remember their own borders drawn by war and by negotiations that lasted decades, this scene is not foreign. When territory changes by artillery, and not by ink, agreements signed later only legalise what the guns have already decided. Does Europe really think such a precedent will stay far from it?