Overview
In late 2025, the Trump administration’s drive to broker an end to Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine entered a decisive phase. U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg said a peace deal was “really, really close,” with only two core disputes left: the fate of the Donbas region—especially the remaining Ukrainian‑held parts of Donetsk—and the future of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest. Kellogg estimated over 2 million combined Russian and Ukrainian casualties since Russia’s 2022 invasion, as Moscow now holds roughly 19% of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea and most of Donbas.
But the path to peace is deeply contested. A leaked 28‑point U.S. draft plan alarmed Kyiv and European allies, who say it rewards Russian aggression by locking in large territorial gains and limiting Ukraine’s future military strength, even as Russia demands further concessions such as full control of Donbas and a favorable settlement over Zaporizhzhia. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calls talks with U.S. envoys “constructive but not easy” and rejects ceding more territory without a legal mandate, while Putin signals he will take all of Donbas “militarily or otherwise” if negotiations fail. Against this backdrop, Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner shuttle between Moscow, Kyiv, and Western capitals, as the U.S., Russia, Ukraine, and Europe test whether a durable peace is possible—or whether the war will freeze into a dangerous, unstable stalemate.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Trump administration is spearheading the current peace push to end the Ukraine war, drafting U.S. proposals and dispatching envoys to Moscow, Kyiv, and European capitals.
Ukraine’s government is fighting to repel Russian forces, hold its remaining territory in Donbas and the south, and secure a peace that does not sacrifice sovereignty or future security.
Russia is the invading power in Ukraine, seeking to secure recognition of its territorial gains and long-term constraints on Ukraine’s alignment with NATO.
European governments back Ukraine militarily and financially while seeking a peace deal that does not legitimize Russian conquest or weaken European security.
Timeline
-
Zelenskyy calls U.S. talks ‘constructive but not easy’
Public StatementZelenskyy says his discussions with Witkoff and Kushner were constructive yet difficult and prepares to meet French, British, and German leaders in London and Brussels for further consultations.
-
Kellogg: Ukraine peace deal is ‘really close’ but Moscow wants radical changes
Public StatementAt the Reagan National Defense Forum, outgoing U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg says talks are in the “last 10 metres,” with only Donbas and Zaporizhzhia unresolved. The Kremlin responds that the U.S. must make “serious, radical changes” to its proposals, especially on territorial questions.
-
Zaporizhzhia plant briefly loses external power amid strikes
Security IncidentThe IAEA reports that Zaporizhzhia temporarily lost all external power before it was restored, highlighting persistent nuclear risks as the plant remains under Russian control and a key bargaining chip in peace talks.
-
Putin vows to take all of Donbas, militarily or otherwise
Public StatementIn an interview, Putin declares that Russia will secure full control over Donbas, either by force or by Ukrainian withdrawal, underscoring the centrality of Donetsk and Luhansk in the talks.
-
Witkoff and Kushner hold marathon Kremlin talks with Putin
High-Level NegotiationTrump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner meet Putin in Moscow for around five hours to discuss a revised peace plan. Russian aide Yuri Ushakov calls the talks constructive but says no compromise on territories has yet been reached.
-
U.S. and Ukraine promise ‘updated’ framework; Europe tables counter-plan
Framework RevisionFollowing criticism, Washington and Kyiv say they will update the peace framework. European allies publish a Kyiv-friendly plan that delays territorial negotiations until after a ceasefire and avoids demanding Ukrainian withdrawals from key Donbas cities.
-
European leaders push back on U.S. 28-point plan
Allied ResponseEuronews reports that European leaders deem Trump’s 28‑point plan a mere draft, rejecting territorial concessions that would give Russia all of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk and reduce Ukraine’s army to 600,000.
-
U.S.–Russia peace plan leaks, Kyiv and Europe recoil
Leak / Political BacklashA U.S.–Russia draft peace proposal reportedly drafted by Kirill Dmitriev and Steve Witkoff leaks. Ukrainian officials label it “absurd” and a provocation, while European allies voice concern that it resembles a Russian “wish list.”
-
Russia’s non-paper reiterates maximalist demands
Diplomatic CommunicationReuters reports that Russia sent a private communique to Washington restating demands for full control over Donbas and a ban on NATO troops in Ukraine, clashing with U.S. ideas of freezing current front lines.
-
Reuters outlines contours of a potential peace deal
Analytical LeakReuters publishes an analysis of leaked U.S. drafts suggesting that Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be recognized de facto as Russian, with Ukrainian withdrawals from remaining Donbas and the creation of demilitarized zones, sparking concerns over territorial concessions.
-
Trump–Putin Alaska summit focuses on Ukraine
SummitDonald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet at Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage for a summit centered on the Ukraine war and possible economic cooperation, laying groundwork for later written peace proposals.
-
Trump’s Zaporizhzhia ownership idea surfaces—and is rejected
Backchannel ProposalReports emerge that Trump discussed the U.S. potentially owning and operating Zaporizhzhia and other Ukrainian nuclear plants as part of a ceasefire deal. Zelenskyy clarifies that only Zaporizhzhia was mentioned and firmly rejects any foreign ownership as illegal.
-
Russia announces annexation of four Ukrainian regions
Political MoveFollowing widely condemned referendums, Russia claims to annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Ukraine and most of the world reject the move as illegal and vow not to recognize the new borders.
-
Russia seizes Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
Military EscalationRussian troops capture Enerhodar and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant after shelling near the facility, sparking global alarm over nuclear safety and inaugurating a long-running nuclear crisis at the site.
-
Russia launches full-scale invasion of Ukraine
Military EscalationRussian forces invade Ukraine from multiple directions, beginning the largest war in Europe since World War II. Ukraine declares martial law and mobilizes its population.
Scenarios
Imperfect Deal Within Months: De Facto Partition and Managed Nuclear Compromise
Discussed by: Reuters analysts, European and Ukrainian officials quoted in Reuters and Euronews
Under this scenario, the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine, with grudging European acquiescence, converge on a deal that freezes lines broadly near today’s front, with de facto recognition of Russian control over Crimea, Luhansk, and most of Donetsk, plus gains in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Remaining Ukrainian-held pockets of Donbas become a special-status or demilitarized area; Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant receives an international or IAEA-administered regime to mitigate safety risks. Ukraine gets limited but real security assurances and Western reconstruction aid, but NATO membership is indefinitely shelved. The war’s active phase winds down, but Ukraine emerges territorially shrunken and heavily dependent on Western guarantees.
Talks Stall, War Grinds On into a Bleeding Stalemate
Discussed by: Security experts and think-tank analysts cited in Reuters and The Guardian
Here, Zelenskyy—under domestic and military pressure—refuses territorial concessions enshrined in law, while Putin rejects anything short of full Donbas and solid legal guarantees over annexed regions. European leaders resist endorsing a settlement that rewards aggression, and Congress and U.S. politics complicate Trump’s room to maneuver. Negotiations drag on in fits and starts as Russia steps up missile and drone attacks and incremental offensives in Donbas and the south. The conflict increasingly resembles a protracted, low-to-medium-intensity war with periodic escalations and no decisive breakthrough, similar to the years after Minsk II, leaving Ukraine devastated and Europe on permanent security alert.
Hardline Russian-Favorable Deal After Political Shocks in Kyiv or the West
Discussed by: Some European and Ukrainian commentators warning of ‘capitulation’ scenarios
In this darker scenario, mounting battlefield setbacks, economic strain, and corruption scandals weaken Zelenskyy’s position or bring a more compromise-oriented leadership to power. Simultaneously, political shifts in Washington or key European capitals reduce appetite for sustained support. A revised peace plan, closer to the original leaked U.S.–Russia draft, is pushed through under intense pressure, requiring Ukraine to withdraw from remaining parts of Donbas, formally recognize some Russian annexations de facto, and drastically limit its armed forces. Moscow is reintegrated into the global economy and offered major economic incentives. Such a deal might stop large-scale fighting but could fracture Ukrainian society, destabilize Kyiv’s politics, and critically damage Western credibility on collective security.
Parallel Tracks: European Security Pact and Frozen Conflict in Ukraine
Discussed by: European policymakers and analysts promoting long-term security guarantees
If U.S.-brokered talks fail or produce an unpalatable outcome, European states may increasingly pursue a separate track focused on long-term security guarantees and military backing for Ukraine, including multi-year arms packages and a gradual path toward EU and possibly NATO structures, without a formal peace treaty. Russia retains de facto control over occupied areas, and front lines harden into a contested border, akin to other frozen conflicts. The U.S. role becomes more ambivalent, while Europe shoulders greater responsibility. This outcome would not formally end the war but could stabilize the front and deter major offensives at the cost of normalizing a partitioned, militarized Ukraine.
Ceasefire First, Political Settlement Later
Discussed by: IAEA officials, European counter-plan advocates, ceasefire-enforcement experts
A more incremental scenario sees agreement on a monitored ceasefire and humanitarian measures, including nuclear safety arrangements at Zaporizhzhia and limits on strikes against critical infrastructure, while deferring hard territorial and status questions. A demilitarized buffer zone and international observers—potentially involving neutral states—help hold the line. Political negotiations then stretch over years, mirroring post‑Korean War dynamics. This approach reduces immediate casualties and nuclear risk but leaves the core dispute unresolved and vulnerable to future flare-ups.
Historical Context
Korean Armistice Agreement (1953)
1950–1953 (war) / Armistice signed July 27, 1953What Happened
The Korean War ended not with a peace treaty but with the Korean Armistice Agreement, which created a heavily fortified demilitarized zone roughly along the 38th parallel and froze front lines without resolving the underlying political conflict between North and South Korea. Hostilities ceased, but the Korean Peninsula technically remains in a state of war.
Outcome
Short term: A ceasefire stopped large-scale fighting and established monitoring mechanisms along the DMZ.
Long term: The division of Korea became permanent de facto, with recurrent crises but no final peace settlement, illustrating how armistices can freeze conflicts rather than resolve them.
Why It's Relevant
Several Ukraine proposals contemplate a ceasefire line, demilitarized zones, and long-term monitoring without fully resolving sovereignty claims—akin to Korea’s armistice. This parallel shows how such arrangements can prevent immediate bloodshed but institutionalize partitions and create enduring flashpoints.
Dayton Accords Ending the Bosnian War (1995)
1992–1995 (war) / Accords initialed November 21, 1995What Happened
The Dayton Peace Agreement, brokered by the United States at Wright‑Patterson Air Force Base, ended the Bosnian War by preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single state divided into two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska), along with a complex power‑sharing system and heavy international oversight.
Outcome
Short term: Fighting ceased and large-scale violence ended, with NATO and later EU forces overseeing implementation.
Long term: Dayton has kept the peace but entrenched ethnic divisions and complex governance; Bosnia remains fragile and heavily influenced by external actors.
Why It's Relevant
Dayton shows how U.S.-led diplomacy can end a brutal war through territorial compromises, institutional engineering, and foreign guarantors. The Ukraine talks similarly revolve around maps, demographic realities, and external security guarantees, raising questions about whether a “Dayton for Ukraine” would trade off democratic simplicity and long-term stability for ending immediate violence.
Minsk II Agreement on Donbas (2015)
2014–2015 and aftermathWhat Happened
The Minsk II accords, negotiated by Ukraine, Russia, and OSCE mediators with Franco-German involvement, aimed to halt fighting in eastern Ukraine through a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and constitutional reforms granting special status to separatist-held areas. In practice, the ceasefire was repeatedly violated, and core political provisions were never fully implemented.
Outcome
Short term: Violence decreased in some periods but never fully stopped; front lines stabilized into a low-intensity trench war.
Long term: Minsk II became a frozen, contested framework that each side accused the other of violating, setting the stage for Russia’s larger 2022 invasion when Moscow claimed Ukraine had failed to implement its obligations.
Why It's Relevant
Minsk II is a direct cautionary precedent: a vaguely worded, poorly enforced agreement on eastern Ukraine that neither side truly accepted as legitimate. Current negotiators fear repeating its flaws—overly ambiguous language on autonomy, security, and sequencing—yet some proposals again rely on ceasefires, special statuses, and demilitarized zones in Donbas, making Minsk II a critical lens for judging whether new arrangements can be more durable.