Overview
In early 2025, returning U.S. President Donald Trump launched an aggressive push to "end the war" in Ukraine, tying resumed military aid and intelligence sharing to Kyiv’s acceptance of a U.S.-drafted peace framework that includes territorial concessions to Russia and long-term limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty. The plan, revised through months of talks in Jeddah, Geneva and Florida, would effectively trade parts of the Donbas and other occupied areas for security guarantees and a re‑set in U.S.–Russia relations, and has been welcomed in Moscow but met with mounting alarm in Kyiv and across Europe.
By December 8, 2025, the diplomacy reached a critical inflection point as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in London to coordinate a joint response to the Trump plan. All four leaders publicly rejected any settlement built on Ukraine ceding territory, insisting on a "just and lasting" peace and stronger security guarantees instead. Their stance pits a largely united Ukraine–Europe front—and Ukrainian public opinion, which still leans against concessions—against U.S. pressure and Russian demands, leaving several starkly different outcomes on the table.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The government of Ukraine is prosecuting a war of national defense against Russia while negotiating for security guarantees and reconstruction support from Western allies.
The second Trump administration is pursuing a rapid end to the Ukraine war, prioritising a reset with Russia and a reduced U.S. security burden in Europe.
The Kremlin is pursuing negotiations that would consolidate Russia’s control over occupied Ukrainian territory while easing sanctions and constraining Ukraine’s future alignment with NATO and the EU.
Under Keir Starmer, the UK has become a hub for European coordination on Ukraine, hosting summits and pushing for strong security guarantees backed by a possible European force.
NATO is not a direct party to the U.S.–Ukraine negotiations but sits at the heart of the dispute over Ukraine’s future alignment and European security architecture.
Timeline
-
Kremlin awaits outcome of Florida talks
Diplomatic SignalKremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Moscow has not yet been informed of the detailed outcome of the Florida U.S.–Ukraine talks and will decide its response once it sees the revised proposals.
-
London meeting: Ukraine and key European leaders push back on Trump plan
SummitZelenskyy meets Starmer, Macron and Merz at 10 Downing Street to coordinate a response to the U.S. peace proposal. The leaders emphasise a “just and lasting” peace, reject pressured territorial concessions, and discuss unified security guarantees. Zelenskyy later reiterates that Ukraine will not cede land to Russia.
-
Florida talks: Zelenskyy calls U.S. meetings ‘constructive but not easy’
NegotiationAfter meetings in Florida with Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Zelenskyy says talks were constructive but difficult, with no agreement yet on eastern Ukraine’s status; he announces plans to consult European leaders.
-
Ukraine’s top general calls concessions ‘unacceptable’
InterviewArmed forces chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi tells Sky News that giving up territory in any U.S.-brokered deal would be an “unjust peace” and accuses Russia of using talks as cover to seize more land.
-
Yermak and Putin stake out incompatible red lines
Public StatementsZelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak says Ukraine will not give up land for peace, while Putin says Russia will fight on unless Kyiv withdraws from territory Moscow claims—both referencing the U.S. draft as a possible negotiation basis.
-
Leaked 28‑point U.S. plan sparks backlash; promise of an update
NegotiationA leaked 28‑point U.S. document reveals demands that Ukraine hand over territory, shrink its army and waive war‑crimes claims; after criticism, the U.S. and Ukraine pledge an “updated” framework that will fully uphold Ukrainian sovereignty.
-
Zelenskyy rejects Trump’s territorial concession idea
Public StatementAfter Trump signals he will discuss territorial swaps with Putin in Alaska, Zelenskyy publicly rejects any suggestion that Ukraine would give up land, calling such decisions unconstitutional and ineffective for peace.
-
Merz lifts range limits on Western weapons to Ukraine
Military DecisionGerman Chancellor Friedrich Merz announces that Germany, France, the UK and the U.S. are lifting range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine, allowing strikes on targets inside Russia.
-
Debate over enforcing a Ukraine ceasefire
AnalysisAnalysts warn that enforcing any ceasefire will be difficult given Russia’s record of violating the Minsk accords and the scale of the current front; proposals include demilitarised zones and neutral monitoring forces.
-
Jeddah talks and conditional 30‑day ceasefire
NegotiationAt U.S.–Ukraine talks in Jeddah, Ukraine expresses readiness to accept a 30‑day ceasefire and enter broader negotiations if Russia reciprocates; the U.S. agrees to lift its freeze on intelligence sharing and military aid.
-
2025 London Summit on Ukraine
SummitStarmer hosts leaders from 16 states, the EU and NATO in London to draft a European peace and security framework for Ukraine to present to the United States.
-
Explosive Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting
Diplomatic MeetingA televised Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy turns confrontational; Washington subsequently pauses some military aid and intelligence sharing, increasing leverage over Kyiv.
-
Starmer warns of reinvasion risk without U.S. guarantees
Public StatementAhead of talks with Trump in Washington, UK PM Keir Starmer warns that Putin could reinvade Ukraine if the U.S. refuses to provide security guarantees, urging a U.S. backstop for a British‑French peacekeeping plan.
-
Second inauguration of Donald Trump
Political EventTrump is sworn in as the 47th U.S. president; aides and campaign statements emphasise his pledge to quickly end the war in Ukraine and rebalance alliances.
-
Trump wins 2024 U.S. presidential election
ElectionDonald Trump defeats Kamala Harris and secures 312 electoral votes, setting the stage for a radically different U.S. approach to the Ukraine war in his second term.
Scenarios
Reworked Deal: Ceasefire Without Formal Territorial Surrender
Discussed by: European leaders, some U.S. officials, and policy analysts in outlets such as The Guardian, AP, Reuters and Foreign Policy
Under this scenario, Ukraine and key European states manage to rewrite the U.S. framework so that it freezes the front lines without legally recognising Russian annexations. The deal would include a monitored ceasefire, phased sanctions relief tied to Russian compliance, and robust, mostly European security guarantees, with a limited U.S. backstop. Ukraine would not formally cede territory but might accept a long‑term “no NATO membership” clause or a special regime for contested areas. This outcome requires Washington to soften demands for explicit concessions and Moscow to accept a de facto, not de jure, partition, both of which remain uncertain.
Imposed Concessions: Ukraine Pressured Into Trading Land for Guarantees
Discussed by: Trump allies and some commentators supportive of a rapid deal; criticised by Ukrainian, European and human-rights voices
Here, sustained U.S. pressure—including threats to curtail aid—eventually forces Kyiv to accept a deal that explicitly transfers parts of Donetsk, Luhansk and potentially other regions to Russia in exchange for security guarantees and economic support. Trump could present this as ending the war and restoring stability with Russia. However, Ukrainian public opinion, the military, and parts of Europe would likely view it as a betrayal, risking domestic unrest in Ukraine, possible resistance from the armed forces, and a long‑term legitimacy crisis for the settlement. It might also encourage future revisionism by Russia or other powers.
Talks Collapse: War Grinds On With Fractured Western Unity
Discussed by: Security analysts and Ukrainian officials warning about Russian use of talks as ‘cover’
In this outcome, incompatibility between Ukraine’s and Russia’s red lines—especially over territory and NATO—combined with domestic politics in Washington, Kyiv and Moscow causes negotiations to stall or collapse. Russia continues offensive operations while blaming Ukraine and the West for rejecting a ‘reasonable’ plan. Trump, frustrated, may sharply cut or condition U.S. aid, forcing Europe to shoulder more of the burden. Ukraine fights on with diminished resources, and the conflict drifts toward a bloody stalemate akin to a frozen war, with periodic escalations and no clear political resolution.
European Security Autonomy: A Europe-Led Guarantee Regime Emerges
Discussed by: European leaders and think‑tank analysts focused on ‘strategic autonomy’ and reassurance forces
If U.S. guarantees remain limited or unreliable, European powers—especially the UK, France and Germany—could move ahead with a robust European‑led security architecture for Ukraine. That might include a multinational reassurance or peacekeeping force, long‑term weapons commitments, and binding bilateral or EU‑level defence pacts, even if Ukraine remains formally outside NATO. This would not by itself end the war but could underpin a future settlement or at least deter renewed large‑scale invasion. It would also mark a major step toward European strategic autonomy, with lasting implications for NATO and U.S.–Europe relations.
Historical Context
Minsk II Agreement (2015)
February 2015 – 2022What Happened
In February 2015, Ukraine, Russia and separatist representatives, brokered by Germany and France, agreed the Minsk II package: a ceasefire, pullback of heavy weapons, and a special status for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. The deal froze front lines but left key political questions unresolved, and was repeatedly violated until Russia’s full‑scale invasion in 2022 rendered it moot.
Outcome
Short term: Fighting in Donbas reduced but never fully stopped; both sides accused each other of violations, and OSCE monitoring could not prevent flare‑ups.
Long term: Minsk II became a cautionary tale of an unstable compromise that Russia later discarded, contributing to Ukrainian scepticism of any new agreement that locks in territorial losses.
Why It's Relevant
Many Ukrainians and Europeans see Trump’s framework—especially if it trades land for paper guarantees—as risking a ‘Minsk III’: a ceasefire that cements Russian gains without resolving underlying disputes, inviting future aggression.
Dayton Accords Ending the Bosnian War (1995)
November–December 1995What Happened
The U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian War by creating a single Bosnian state divided into two highly autonomous entities with a complex constitutional structure, enforced by a large NATO peacekeeping force and extensive international oversight. The agreement formalised significant territorial changes and ethnic partitions to stop the fighting.
Outcome
Short term: Dayton stopped large‑scale violence and allowed refugees to begin returning under the protection of NATO troops.
Long term: Peace has largely held, but Bosnia remains politically fragile and ethnically divided, with a constitutional system many see as freezing wartime realities.
Why It's Relevant
Dayton shows that externally imposed peace deals involving territorial and constitutional engineering can end wars but may entrench dysfunctional structures and grievances. It informs debates over whether a U.S.-driven Ukraine settlement could be stable or would simply freeze conflict lines.
Korean Armistice and the Frozen Korean War
July 1953 – presentWhat Happened
The Korean War ended not with a peace treaty but with the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, establishing a demilitarised zone along the front and halting fighting without resolving the political conflict between North and South Korea. No final peace agreement has been reached decades later.
Outcome
Short term: Hostilities ceased and a heavily fortified DMZ was created, but tensions and periodic clashes persisted.
Long term: The Korean Peninsula remains technically at war, with the armistice underpinning a long‑term frozen conflict and ongoing security crises.
Why It's Relevant
The Korean precedent highlights the possibility that a Ukraine deal might deliver a ceasefire and demarcation line without a true peace treaty, creating a long‑term frozen conflict in which front lines become de facto borders but the political war never fully ends.