Following peace diplomacy, where peace stands

Are we close to peace in Ukraine?

After a confusing few days of diplomacy, Donald Trump seems to think so.

“We are getting very close to an agreement,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

For his part, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who saw and witnessed the grim weekend, said that there are now “many possibilities that can make the path to peace a reality”.

“It has important results,” he said, after reviewing the results of Sunday’s key discussions in Geneva, “and there is still a lot of work to be done.”

However, aside from some unwelcome rebuttals about European involvement and unauthorised leaks, the Russian response has been somewhat muted.

Moscow views some elements of the latest draft positively, but Yuri Ishakov, a Kremlin aide, stated on Wednesday that “many require special discussions between experts”.

Furthermore, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, said it was “premature” to think a deal was close.

Given the gulf that exists between Ukraine and Russia on so many key issues—including territory, NATO membership, who should pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction, and how those involved in war crimes will be held accountable—it’s hard to see all the pieces coming together anytime soon.

Last Wednesday already seems like the first. That’s when a leaked draft of the 28-point US plan to end the war emerged.

The plan caused an outcry in Kiev and sent European diplomats scrambling to limit the damage, leading some to describe it as a “Russian wish list” for Ukraine to cede territory and limit the size of its military.

In certain aspects, it resembled the events of August, when the US president extended a warm welcome to Putin in Alaska and European leaders travelled to Washington to engage with Trump.

By the end of the week, the Europeans had drafted a counterproposal, also 28 points long, that replaced the U.S. plan’s blunt territorial concessions with “negotiations on territorial exchanges” and toughened language on security guarantees, a key concern of Kyiv.

But how much influence the Europeans had on Sunday’s talks in Geneva remains unclear.

A joint US-Ukraine statement released after the talks concluded spoke of “very productive” discussions, saying any future agreement must deliver “durable and just peace.”

Several European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, seized on the words “sustainable and just” to signal progress.

Ukrainian officials also expressed relief. The latest version of the plan has been whittled down to just 19 points, with the most contentious issues – territory and Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO – left to Trump and Zelensky to decide, First Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kaslesia said.

Much like how the original 28-point version was leaked (with fingers pointing in multiple directions), a tight veil of secrecy has been drawn around the latest version.

Despite talks in Abu Dhabi involving the US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll (a new addition to Trump’s Ukraine team), Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Kyrillo Budanov, and Russian officials, Ishakov says the plan still hasn’t been discussed in detail.

With Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff due in Moscow next week and Zelenskyy talking of another visit to the White House, it looks like the diplomatic momentum isn’t going away.

But where are we?

“Now we’re on the fast track to something,” says Daniel Freud, former US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

“I can’t say whether we are on the fast track to failure or success, but it is moving quickly.”

Ambassador Freud says last week’s 28-point US plan was a “hot mess” but the motivation behind it is real.

“To the Trump administration’s credit, it is pushing hard for a settlement.”

The sense of dread that enveloped Kiev last week prompted Zelensky to observe that Ukraine is facing its most challenging moment in its history.

“In Geneva, the Ukrainian delegation was very satisfied,” said the non-resident senior fellow of the Eurasia Center of the Atlantic Council, speaking from Kiev.

“The purpose of this exercise was not solely to reach a deal, but to complete the 28-point plan, demonstrate Ukraine’s interest in potential negotiations, and show that Ukraine is genuinely willing to engage in dialogue.”

But if Kyiv feels it has successfully weathered some of the worst that was being demanded—and we still don’t—there are plenty of concerns.

Chief among them: what kind of security guarantees can it expect if it finally strikes a deal with a country that has launched an unprovoked attack on its territory and is still more greedy?

“The essential question we should be asking here is the guarantee of security,” Gongdze says. “Who will give these guarantees, who is being held accountable and which borders will not be violated?

“If the responses are weak, then the situation is setting Ukraine up for another crisis.”

In response to the rather vague promise in the original US document to offer “credible security guarantees,” European leaders have spoken of the US guarantee as mirroring “Article 5″—a reference to NATO’s principle of collective defence.

Last week, the Accessos News website reported the existence of a separate US document presented to Ukraine, “security insurance based on the principles of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, adapted to the circumstances of this conflict.”.

Clearly, this crucial aspect of the project is still evolving. After a virtual meeting of the UK-France-led coalition on Tuesday, participants agreed to “step up joint work with the US to advance planning on security guarantees” with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Sir Keir Starmer says operational plans for a multinational “assurance force” for Ukraine are fully formed, but until the Trump administration indicates it is prepared to provide backup, if any, those plans remain largely theoretical.

“Security guarantees need to be removed,” says Ambassador Freud.

The alliance is a good idea, but it hasn’t reached a conclusion yet because they’re waiting to see if the Americans will support them and what they’ll do.

Another big unknown is where we are on the territory.

In last week’s 28-point plan, it bluntly stated that Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be “de facto recognised as Russian” and that Ukrainian forces would withdraw from highly contested parts of the Donetsk region.

All this language disappeared in the European response. It says Ukraine will “commit not to recover its occupied autonomous territory by military means”. It states that all regional negotiations “shall begin at the line of contact”—the existing frontlines.

It is unclear which European approach influenced the document following the negotiations in Geneva.

The joint US-Ukrainian communiqué offered only oblique insight, saying that both sides “affirmed that any future agreement should fully preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

The use of the word “absolutely” carries significant weight.

Given Trump’s firm approach to the war in Ukraine, Putin’s lingering ambitions and Zelenskyy’s domestic difficulties – the current round of diplomacy comes amid a corruption scandal that is undermining his domestic standing – it’s extremely difficult to know where the process will go next.

But it may be overly optimistic to think we’re near the end.

“We’re still in the middle of the process,” says Leslie Shade, another of the Atlantic Council’s non-resident fellows.

“There’s definitely still a long way to go.”

But for all the apparent chaos surrounding the Trump administration’s efforts, including an ever-changing — and potentially competing — cast of roles, Shade believes the administration is serious.

“It seems that the president is really prioritising the pursuit of peace in Ukraine.” And I think that’s really, vital.”