In Part 1 and Part 2, I sought AI’s aid in assessing the motivations of the global leaders who are now all involved in a surprising brouhaha that broke the news cycle wide open last Friday in the Oval Office.

In this third installment, I asked the following question to both ChatGPT and DeepSeek:

“We are now looking at a struggle between four distinct parties: the US, Russia, Ukraine and Europe. Europe of course can be decomposed into what some call ideological blocks. The US is also divided into two opposing camps that correlate today with a Trump-led Republican party and a Democratic party that continues to adhere, at least publicly, to the line followed by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

This situation is novel in many ways. In the past, when questions of war and peace arose, the concerned parties had a clear position that reflected the stance of their government. During the two world wars every European nation defined its position as either committed to one of the alliances or neutral. Even if a nation’s position changed in the course of the war, no ambiguity remained. US President Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election on the basis of his promise that the US would avoid any political implication in Europe’s war. But when, in 1917, he committed to joining it, the nation rallied behind him. To prevent discord, Wilson fueled an effective propaganda campaign against those who preferred to cling to his election-year promise. It was effective. The US unambiguously joined Britain’s and France’s war effort.

Today’s situation is far more ambiguous even than that of World War I. The US is the leader of the NATO alliance, which usually assumes that its 31 partners will follow its lead. With a change of administrations, the government of the leader has radically altered its position, abandoning its previous ‘unwavering’ commitment to one of apparent neutrality, in the interest of playing the role of honest broker. But most of the other 31 members of NATO had committed individually to a position of being a party to one side in the war.

At this precise moment in time, observers and the engaged parties themselves are left wondering how each of their own partners in NATO will react to their leader’s sudden change of heart. Can they find common ground? Can any of them credibly change their position without looking like sycophantic vassals? Would the leaders themselves not compromise their own political credibility if they were suddenly to change their discourse? Politics thrives on inertia. What happens when inertia is all at once radically disrupted?

We may ask another question of deeper significance. Are any of the partners really interested in addressing the question of how to resolve an ongoing war?

Given this incredibly complex knot of conflicts and contradictions and given the high stakes of a standoff of global significance involving at least four nations with a nuclear arsenal, can we begin to imagine the four most credible scenarios for the coming months?”

A quick overview of the two responses

Before I reproduce the complete text of the two AIs, here is a comparison of the list of titles of the scenarios each chose.

ChatGPT:

1. Stalemate and Prolonged Attrition

2. A European-Led Coalition Steps Up

3. A Negotiated Settlement Under External Pressure

4. Uncontrolled Escalation

Deepseek:

1. Stalemate and Frozen Conflict

2. Escalation and Broader Conflict

3. Diplomatic Breakthrough and Peace Agreement

4. Internal Political Shifts and Realignment

You might notice that ChatGPT reserves the escalation hypothesis for last. But it appears to give it a more extreme formulation by supposing it will be “uncontrolled.” When comparing its detailed description with DeepSeek’s, we discover that ChatGPT clearly casts Russia as the potential ill-intentioned villain responsible for aggravating an already degraded situation. DeepSeek also anticipates Russian escalation but explains it as a reaction to being “cornered.” This, of course, echoes the debate most people are aware of that turns around assessing whether the Russian invasion in 2022 was provoked or unprovoked.

The two chatbots broadly agree on the trends, but this kind of nuance concerning one nation’s intentions reveals a possible ideological divergence. ChatGPT may thus reflect a “feeling” about geopolitical intentions recognizable as being the dominant interpretation in the West’s legacy media. DeepSeek’s reading appears closer to the way geopolitical “realists” reason, who are less likely to make assumptions about a specific player’s moral character or simply its aggressivity.

Concerning the presentation of the two best case scenarios (both in the number three position), DeepSeek presents a clearly rosier and frankly optimistic view. ChatGPT’s remains much more tentative and cautious.

Details such as this may help to create some welcome perspective for users who consult AI to develop their own reflection.

Here are the two responses in full. We invite you to read them, learn from them and think about the differences.

ChatGPT’s response

“This evolving geopolitical situation indeed presents a level of ambiguity and complexity that makes traditional forecasting difficult. However, we can outline several plausible scenarios for the coming months based on current trends and the key pressures acting on the various parties:

Scenario 1: Stalemate and Prolonged Attrition

• US Policy Evolution: The US, under a new administration, continues its shift toward neutrality, reducing military aid while pushing for negotiations.
• European Response: NATO members remain divided—some maintain military support for Ukraine (e.g., Poland, the Baltics, the UK), while others (e.g., Germany, France) push for diplomacy.
• Russia’s Stance: Russia continues its war of attrition, betting on Western fatigue and political divisions.
• Ukraine’s Position: With reduced Western aid, Ukraine struggles to sustain its defenses but refuses to surrender, leading to a frozen conflict with occasional escalations.
• Outcome: A drawn-out, indecisive war, increasingly resembling Korea’s division or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Scenario 2: A European-Led Coalition Steps Up

• US Retrenchment: The US withdraws from active leadership, leaving European nations to decide their role.
• European Response: A ‘coalition of the willing’ (led by the UK, France, Poland, and the Nordics) commits to maintaining Ukraine’s defense independently of Washington’s position.
• Russia’s Reaction: Russia escalates hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, and possibly tests NATO’s resolve through border provocations.
• Outcome: A divided NATO, where a core group remains committed to Ukraine, while others (e.g., Hungary, Slovakia) drift toward appeasement or neutrality.

Scenario 3: A Negotiated Settlement Under External Pressure

• US Initiative: The US administration brokers peace talks, leveraging economic levers over Ukraine and NATO allies to push for a ceasefire.
• European Support: Major European powers (Germany, France) align with this diplomatic push, offering security guarantees to Ukraine but pressuring it to accept territorial compromises.
• Russia’s Willingness: If internal economic strains or political pressures (e.g., elite discontent) grow, Russia may engage in talks, but only on its terms (recognition of annexed territories).
• Outcome: A fragile ceasefire akin to Minsk agreements, with continued tensions and unresolved territorial disputes.

Scenario 4: Uncontrolled Escalation

• US Political Uncertainty: If domestic US politics result in erratic foreign policy (e.g., conflicting signals from the administration and Congress), allies become disoriented.
• European Division: NATO fractures further, with some members advocating stronger intervention and others seeking disengagement.
• Russia’s Moves: Russia exploits divisions, intensifies operations, and escalates provocations, including hybrid warfare against NATO states.
• Unintended NATO Involvement: A Russian attack (deliberate or accidental) on NATO territory triggers Article 5 debates, leading to a dangerous moment of escalation.
• Outcome: A rapid crisis that could force an existential confrontation, either through high-stakes diplomacy or, in the worst case, military engagement.

Each scenario has key variables—domestic political shifts, economic pressures, and battlefield dynamics—that could tilt the outcome one way or another. The biggest unknown remains whether any of the parties involved genuinely seek resolution or whether inertia will sustain the conflict indefinitely.”

DeepSeek’s answer

“The situation you describe is indeed complex and fraught with potential for both conflict and resolution. The interplay between the US, Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, compounded by internal divisions within the US and Europe, creates a volatile geopolitical landscape. Here are three credible scenarios for the coming months, each with its own set of implications:

 1. Stalemate and Frozen Conflict

• Scenario: The conflict in Ukraine continues without a clear resolution, leading to a prolonged stalemate. The US, under a new administration, maintains its stance of neutrality, focusing on diplomatic efforts rather than military support. Europe remains divided, with some nations pushing for stronger support for Ukraine and others advocating for a more cautious approach. Russia consolidates its gains in eastern Ukraine but faces ongoing resistance and international sanctions.
• Implications: This scenario could lead to a ‘frozen conflict’ similar to the situation in Eastern Ukraine prior to the 2022 escalation. The humanitarian crisis in Ukraine would persist, and the region would remain a flashpoint for potential future conflicts. NATO’s cohesion could be tested, with some member states potentially questioning the alliance’s effectiveness. The US’s role as a global leader might be further scrutinized, especially if its neutrality is perceived as a lack of commitment.

 2. Escalation and Broader Conflict

• Scenario: The conflict escalates, potentially drawing in more NATO members directly. A miscalculation or a deliberate provocation could lead to a broader war. The US, despite its initial neutrality, might be forced to re-engage more actively, especially if a NATO member is attacked. Russia, feeling cornered, might resort to more aggressive tactics, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
• Implications: This scenario would have catastrophic consequences, potentially leading to a full-scale war in Europe. The global economy would suffer immensely, and the risk of nuclear escalation would be high. The US and Europe would face a severe test of their alliances and their ability to coordinate a unified response. The humanitarian toll would be unprecedented, and the geopolitical landscape could be reshaped in ways that are difficult to predict.

 3. Diplomatic Breakthrough and Peace Agreement

• Scenario: A diplomatic breakthrough occurs, facilitated by international mediators or a change in leadership in one of the key nations. The US, under pressure from both domestic and international actors, re-engages in a more active diplomatic role. Russia and Ukraine agree to a ceasefire and begin negotiations for a peace agreement, possibly involving territorial concessions and security guarantees. Europe plays a key role in rebuilding Ukraine and ensuring the implementation of the agreement.
• Implications: This scenario would offer a path to de-escalation and potentially a lasting peace. It would require significant compromises from all parties, but the benefits could be substantial. The US could restore some of its credibility as a global leader, and NATO could emerge stronger if it plays a constructive role in the peace process. The humanitarian situation in Ukraine would improve, and the risk of a broader conflict would be significantly reduced. However, achieving such a breakthrough would require overcoming deep-seated mistrust and conflicting interests.

 4. Internal Political Shifts and Realignment

• Scenario: Internal political shifts in the US or Europe lead to a realignment of policies. For example, a change in the US administration or a significant shift in European leadership could result in a more unified and assertive stance towards Russia. Alternatively, a more isolationist US policy could lead to a further fracturing of NATO, with some European nations seeking alternative security arrangements.
• Implications: This scenario could lead to a reconfiguration of global alliances. If the US becomes more isolationist, Europe might seek to strengthen its own defense capabilities or form new alliances. Conversely, a more assertive US policy could lead to a renewed sense of purpose within NATO. The impact on the conflict in Ukraine would depend on the nature of these shifts, but they could either exacerbate or alleviate the current tensions.

 Conclusion

Each of these scenarios presents a different path forward, with varying degrees of risk and potential for resolution. The key factors to watch will be the internal political dynamics within the US and Europe, the actions of Russia and Ukraine, and the ability of international actors to mediate and find common ground. The stakes are incredibly high, and the coming months will be critical in determining the trajectory of this conflict and its global implications.”

My own tentative conclusion

If you compare the details of the two accounts above, you will probably notice that both attempt to be reasonably objective and balanced. Neither takes sides. Both help us to expand our understanding. But, as we mentioned above, the nuances are also there to deepen the story.

If we use AI in this or a similar way to learn and develop our own reflection, then as consumers we should keep in mind the importance of reading anything our AI bot produces at two distinct levels. The first is to appreciate and evaluate the quality of the information. We should remember that in all cases the experience will expand our horizons, simply because AI has access to more sources than any of us.

But even at this level of processing new information, we should avoid taking every affirmation on trust. We now know that hallucinations are possible. It’s equally important, however, to remember that nuance is not just an effect of style, but can be revelatory of new levels of truth, just as it is in human dialogue. We mustn’t forget that the discourse AI produces in this type of research will always be a distillation of existing human expression. Human errors and biases may be as easily reproduced in AI’s discourse as facts, random errors and in some cases, even well-constructed fiction.

Your thoughts

At Fair Observer, we intend to continue the dialogue we have now begun concerning the dramatic geopolitical events that are now unfolding, in the first quarter of 2025. In our “Outside the Box” columns, we offer examples of dialogue with two chatbots. But we encourage all of you to try the exercise for yourself. Experiment with it. Frame your prompts as sincerely as you can to address the issues you think could benefit from more clarity. Examine, compare and critique the responses you receive.

Most of all, we cordially invite you to share with us your experience, your ideas or your reactions to the research we are doing here, but also your own research. That is where AI can help all of us evolve as active members of a living civilization. AI knows a lot that can complement but also comfort or contradict our own knowledge and convictions. The more we share dialogue and attempt to refine our understanding of its content, the more likely we will be to find the kind of solutions that are collectively acceptable and desirable.

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.