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.
Russia’s full-scale invasion began on February 24, 2022; by December 2025 the conflict has become Europe’s deadliest war since World War II.
≈20%
Ukrainian territory under Russian control
Russia occupies Crimea and substantial parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv, amounting to roughly a fifth of Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory.
In a May–June 2025 KIIS poll, 52% of Ukrainians said they are firmly against giving up any territory to Russia to achieve peace, versus 38% willing to accept some losses.
3
Core European leaders coordinating in London
Starmer, Macron and Merz met Zelenskyy at 10 Downing Street on December 8, 2025 to agree a common line on the U.S. peace framework.
Interactive
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with
Play.
Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?
Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.
Click a figure to generate their perspective on this story
Debate Arena
Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.
Choose Your Battle
Watch two AI personas debate this story using real evidence
Make predictions and set the crossfire to earn XP and cred
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
SIDE A (PRO)
Select debater for this side:
✓
SIDE B (CON)
Select debater for this side:
✓
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate
VS
Get ready to make your prediction...
Round of
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Your Crossfire Question
Generating arguments...
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
Correct predictions earn +20 XP
Evidence
40%
Logic
30%
Detail
20%
Style
10%
Round Results
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Crafting crossfire questions...
Choosing a question earns +10 XP crossfire bonus
🏆
Total XP Earned
Cred Change
Predictions
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Base completion+20 XP
Rounds played ( rounds x 5 XP)
+ XP
Correct predictions ( correct x 20 XP)
+ XP
Crossfire bonus+10 XP
Accuracy
%
Prediction History
Round
You picked:
✓✗
Keep debating to level up your credibility and unlock achievements
Who Said What?
WHO SAID WHAT?
Can you match the quotes to the right people?
Rounds
People
Score:
Round /
streak
-- ?
Score:
Round /
streak
Next Up
Round
of
points
Correct
Best Streak
Time Bonus
People Involved
Volodymyr Zelenskyy
President of Ukraine (Leading Ukraine’s negotiating position; publicly rejecting territorial concessions)
Donald Trump
President of the United States (Driving a U.S.-led peace framework seen as favoring Russian positions on territory and NATO)
Keir Starmer
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Leading European coordination on Ukraine security guarantees and shaping a counter‑proposal to the Trump plan)
Emmanuel Macron
President of France (Advocating strong European security guarantees and wary of U.S. concessions to Russia)
Friedrich Merz
Chancellor of Germany (Key European skeptic of territorial concessions; major arms supplier to Ukraine)
Vladimir Putin
President of Russia (Demanding Ukrainian territorial concessions and limits on NATO in exchange for ending the war)
Andriy Yermak
Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine (Chief negotiator for Ukraine in U.S.-led talks)
Marco Rubio
U.S. Secretary of State (Front-line U.S. diplomat selling and amending the Trump peace framework)
Steve Witkoff
Trump special envoy on Ukraine (Co‑author and shuttle diplomat for the U.S. peace framework)
Jared Kushner
Senior Trump adviser and envoy (Back-channel negotiator with Ukraine and Russia on Trump’s behalf)
Organizations Involved
GO
Government of Ukraine
Government Body
Status: Primary party resisting territorial concessions while dependent on Western security guarantees
The government of Ukraine is prosecuting a war of national defense against Russia while negotiating for security guarantees and reconstruction support from Western allies.
TR
Trump Administration (Second Term)
Executive Branch
Status: Principal architect of the controversial Ukraine peace framework
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.
GO
Government of the Russian Federation (Kremlin)
Government Body
Status: Aggressor state seeking to lock in territorial gains via negotiations
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.
GO
Government of the United Kingdom
Government Body
Status: Leading European coordination on Ukraine peace and security guarantees
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.
NO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Military alliance
Status: Background guarantor and political flashpoint in the peace talks
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
London meeting: Ukraine and key European leaders push back on Trump plan
Summit
Zelenskyy 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.
Kremlin awaits outcome of Florida talks
Diplomatic Signal
Kremlin 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.
Florida talks: Zelenskyy calls U.S. meetings ‘constructive but not easy’
Negotiation
After 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’
Interview
Armed 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 Statements
Zelenskyy’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
Negotiation
A 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 Statement
After 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 Decision
German 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
Analysis
Analysts 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
Negotiation
At 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
Summit
Starmer 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 Meeting
A 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 Statement
Ahead 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 Event
Trump 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
Election
Donald 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
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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 – 2022
What 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 Today
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 1995
What 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 Today
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 – present
What 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 Today
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.
