At a time when its forces continue to lose ground in the east and its capital city is bombarded with Russian attack drones on a near-daily basis, the last thing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy needed was another thing to worry about. But that’s precisely what he got, when former President Donald Trump wiped the floor with Vice President Kamala Harris to reclaim the presidency. Ukrainian officials are now asking the inevitable question: How will Trump manage the war in Ukraine?

The conventional wisdom is that Trump, fresh off a resounding victory, will throw Ukraine under the bus by pressuring Kyiv to sign a settlement that will hand over a fifth of its territory to the Russians and de jure legitimize Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression. Indeed, this was a big talking point for Harris throughout the campaign. Many foreign policy experts in Washington, D.C., have frequently raised concerns about Trump’s personal infatuation with Putin clouding his judgment. At times, Trump’s own words appeared to back this up; he has suggested that Zelenskyy is not only taking U.S. military support for granted but also started the war in the first place.

Yet it’s important to state one fundamental fact up front: None of us know what Trump has in mind for the war in Ukraine. This will cause scowls and sighs among Beltway elites who think they can read Trump’s mind. But all we really have are words from the president-elect who, frankly, is prone to changing his mind depending on the situation he confronts at any given time and the advisers who happen to be sitting in the room.

Besides insisting that he could resolve the nearly three-year-old war in a day, none of us know what Trump’s plans are. He has never talked about the war in great depth, let alone put forth a concrete proposal with specifics. Of course, you wouldn’t expect Trump to do such a thing anyway; it would serve little benefit during an election that largely centered on domestic policy issues like inflation and the state of American democracy. The other reason, though, is because Trump doesn’t want to box himself in before he even begins talking with the main players.

This doesn’t mean that Trump’s advisers haven’t dipped their toes into the peace pool. A number of peace plans have been pitched to the president-elect, all of which center on ending the fighting along the 620-mile front line. In September, Vice President-elect JD Vance offered up some baseline terms: an immediate cease-fire, to be accompanied by a European-enforced demilitarized zone, Russia retaining the land it currently occupies and Ukraine being fortified to the point where the Russian army would be deterred from launching another offensive. Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who served in the first Trump administration, sent Trump a paper offering ways to pressure both Ukraine and Russia into peace talks. Another proposal would install a demilitarized zone along the front line, delay Ukraine’s accession into NATO for 20 years and arm the Ukrainian army over the long term. The common thread unifying all of these different ideas is a desire to, at the very least, pause the war as soon as possible, a paradigm shift in the current U.S. approach, which aims to maintain U.S. military support to boost Kyiv’s prospects on the battlefield.

To what extent is Trump paying attention to any of these plans? Naturally, it’s difficult to say. What we do know is that he views the war as a drain on the U.S. taxpayer, doesn’t believe the Ukrainians can win it and likely perceives the war as a golden opportunity for him to demonstrate his prowess (real or perceived) as a negotiator who can hammer out deals in the most difficult of circumstances. It only took Trump a few days before he called both Zelenskyy and Putin.

In terms of foreign policy priorities, solving Ukraine is at the top of Trump’s list. But trying to dissect his game plan is about as pointless as trying to predict what the weather is going to be in a month’s time. It’s wasted energy, and with a guy like Trump, what seems certain today could just as easily unravel tomorrow.

The more useful effort is to forget about what Trump may or may not do and focus instead on how the war in Ukraine is actually playing out. Ultimately, what is and isn’t possible at the negotiating table will be determined by where the front lines are at any given time, which side (Russia or Ukraine) is on the upswing and who has more resources at their disposal to sustain the fight. While the Russians are taking a beating in the field — the U.K. chief of defense staff commented that October was the deadliest month for the Russian army since the war began — they are still on the offensive in the Donbas, where Ukrainian forces are valiantly resisting but struggling to stop a Russian war machine that is more than willing to throw tens of thousands of men into the meat grinder for the sake of a few dozen kilometers. The Ukrainians don’t have the luxury of matching the Russians man-for-man, tank-for-tank and plane-for-plane. Indeed, Ukraine’s manpower problems are getting more pronounced as the war goes on. Zelenskyy is faced with two unpalatable choices: start drafting young men between the ages of 18 and 22 into the Ukrainian army’s ranks, jeopardizing the country’s already shaky demographics; or avoid a politically unpopular full-scale mobilization and watch as Ukrainian defensive lines continue to crack.

Whatever Trump decides to do will need to be based on reality, not fairy-tale cheerleading from pundits who equate an imperfect peace with outright surrender.

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.