What is the shape of things to come? TF argues that given the absence of trust and decisive military success, it is hard to see how a durable peace could be negotiated. HP prefers to assess best- and worst-case scenarios. The best-case scenario concerns de-escalation and negotiated agreement stopping the violence and destruction in Ukraine. It is not a matter of whether there will be an agreement, but rather when and on what terms. The worst-case scenario of escalation seems more likely than protracted war. TF criticises those who suggest negotiations (1) for having little substance to say and (2) for “Westsplaining”, whereby the Ukrainians’ subjectivity is denounced. The conflict should first reach some level of ripeness. Now what is needed is military support for Ukraine and containment of Russia. “Without a regime change in Russia, a new cooperative and rule-based security order cannot be rebuilt”. HP counters that “ripeness” is a euphemism that masks that war is hell. Moreover, any extra risk of a nuclear war is unacceptable. We return to the big picture of regressive developments but end on a more positive note, discussing the global security community, global reforms, and possible long-term decline of violence.