Overview
After nearly four years of war, Ukraine's allies are racing to finalize security commitments strong enough to convince Kyiv to negotiate—and credible enough to deter Moscow from attacking again. France announced December 29 that a Coalition of the Willing will meet in Paris in early January to nail down what each country will actually contribute: troops, weapons, surveillance, or guarantees to fight if Russia violates a ceasefire. The announcement followed a Mar-a-Lago summit where Trump and Zelenskyy claimed 90% agreement on a 20-point peace plan, with Trump offering 15-year security guarantees and Zelenskyy asking for 50.
The central tension: Ukraine dropped its NATO bid in exchange for "Article 5-like" guarantees from the US and European allies, but no one has forgotten the Budapest Memorandum—the 1994 deal where Ukraine gave up nukes for security promises Russia ignored in 2014. Trump wants a deal before the February 24 anniversary of the invasion. European leaders want binding commitments that survive presidential transitions. Russia controls 20% of Ukrainian territory and keeps demanding more. The land is the thorniest issue, Trump said. So are the guarantees that might prevent round two.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The European answer to Ukraine's security crisis when Trump made US support conditional.
The Cold War alliance navigating its biggest test since the Soviet collapse.
Timeline
-
Macron Announces Paris Summit for Early January
AnnouncementCoalition of the Willing to meet in Paris to finalize concrete security contributions.
-
Multilateral Call: Trump, Zelenskyy, European Leaders
DiplomaticHour-long call with Macron, Starmer, Merz, von der Leyen, Rutte discussing security guarantees.
-
Trump-Zelenskyy Mar-a-Lago Summit Claims 90% Agreement
DiplomaticLeaders announce near-complete alignment on peace framework; territorial issues remain unresolved.
-
Zelenskyy Reveals 20-Point Peace Plan Details
StatementUkrainian president unveils framework including security guarantees, reconstruction, demilitarized zone.
-
Zelenskyy Drops NATO Membership Bid
StatementUkraine abandons pursuit of NATO membership in exchange for Article 5-like security guarantees.
-
Putin Vows to Take Donbas by Force
StatementRussian president says forces will seize remaining Donbas territory militarily if Ukraine doesn't surrender.
-
26 Countries Commit to Deploy Reassurance Force
DiplomaticCoalition members agree in Paris to send troops or assistance to Ukraine post-ceasefire.
-
Second Round of Talks, Competing Memorandums Presented
DiplomaticBoth sides submit peace proposals outlining respective demands and red lines.
-
First Direct Ukraine-Russia Talks in Three Years
DiplomaticUkrainian and Russian officials meet face-to-face for first time since early war.
-
Russia Implements Three-Day Ceasefire
MilitaryBrief pause in hostilities as preliminary goodwill gesture during negotiations.
-
Trump Threatens to Walk Away from Peace Process
StatementUS officials describe new proposals as America's "final offer" unless significant progress achieved.
-
Coalition of the Willing Launched in London
DiplomaticUK and France announce 35-country coalition to provide Ukraine security guarantees post-conflict.
-
Ukraine Agrees to 30-Day Partial Ceasefire
DiplomaticKyiv accepts temporary truce after US aid suspension; US later reinstates support.
-
US Suspends Military Aid, Forces Ukraine to Negotiate
DiplomaticTrump administration halts weapons shipments and intelligence sharing, pressuring Kyiv into peace talks.
-
Russia Launches Full-Scale Invasion
MilitaryPutin's forces enter Ukraine from Belarus, Russia, and Crimea in largest European war since 1945.
Scenarios
Deal Signed Before February 24 Anniversary With European Enforcement
Discussed by: NPR, NBC News, Bloomberg analysts covering multilateral negotiations
Trump pushes through a February deadline deal trading Ukrainian territorial concessions for 15-30 year security guarantees backed by congressional approval. Europe deploys 10,000+ peacekeeping troops to a demilitarized zone along frozen frontlines. Russia accepts because it locks in territorial gains while avoiding NATO expansion. Ukraine accepts because Article 5-like guarantees from US, UK, France, and Germany feel stronger than endless war with retreating defenses. The framework survives Trump leaving office because troops on the ground and legislative commitments create institutional stickiness. Key trigger: Paris summit produces binding troop commitments from Coalition members, convincing Kyiv the guarantees won't evaporate.
Putin Rejects Deal, Grinds Forward for Maximal Gains
Discussed by: CNBC, Atlantic Council, military analysts noting Russian battlefield momentum
Russia keeps stalling negotiations while forces advance 150+ square miles monthly, betting Trump's patience runs out and European unity fractures. Putin calculates that Ukrainian defenses—already retreating faster than any point in the war—will collapse further by spring 2026, giving Russia better terms than any current deal. He publicly engages in talks to avoid blame for failure while privately ordering generals to take remaining Donbas by force. Trump eventually walks away as promised, Europeans can't fill the gap, and Ukraine is forced to accept worse terms in late 2026. Key trigger: Russia continues advancing in January-February despite negotiations, signaling military strategy over diplomatic resolution.
Deal Collapses Like Budapest—Russia Violates Within Five Years
Discussed by: Kyiv Independent, International Crisis Group, security experts citing historical precedent
A ceasefire is signed with security guarantees that look impressive on paper. European peacekeepers deploy to the demilitarized zone. Ukraine begins reconstruction with Western investment. But when Russia tests the boundaries in 2028 or 2030—a border incursion, a drone strike, supporting separatists—the US response is tepid, European coalition members disagree on activation, and the guarantees prove hollow. Ukraine, having demilitarized per agreement terms, faces renewed invasion without the military capacity it sacrificed for peace. The deal becomes a cautionary tale like Budapest: promises from great powers aren't worth the paper when territorial integrity doesn't align with their interests. Key trigger: Guarantees aren't enshrined in binding treaties requiring parliamentary ratification, leaving them vulnerable to political changes.
Ukrainian Referendum Rejects Deal, War Continues
Discussed by: Al Jazeera, Kyiv Post analysts noting Zelenskyy's referendum requirement
Zelenskyy insists any territorial concessions require a national referendum after a 60-day ceasefire, per his December statements. The referendum is held in spring 2026, and Ukrainian voters—watching Russian forces occupy 20% of their country—reject territorial concessions by wide margins. The peace process collapses. Trump declares Ukraine ungrateful and reduces support. European allies increase aid but can't replace US capacity. The war grinds into 2027 with no clear path to resolution. Ukraine faces a choice between fighting with diminishing resources or accepting worse terms without democratic legitimacy. Key trigger: Russia refuses the 60-day ceasefire needed for referendum, or holds one that produces a "No" vote.
Historical Context
Budapest Memorandum (1994)
1994-2014What Happened
Ukraine surrendered the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the US, UK, and Russia guaranteeing its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The memorandum was carefully drafted to avoid implying military commitments—"assurances" not "guarantees." In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion. The US and UK provided sanctions and weapons, but no military intervention. Ukraine tried three times to convene consultations under the memorandum; all failed.
Outcome
Short term: Successful nuclear non-proliferation; Ukraine became non-nuclear state under NPT.
Long term: Complete failure to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity; memorandum became symbol of worthless security promises.
Why It's Relevant
The single biggest obstacle to Ukraine trusting new security guarantees—why Zelenskyy demands binding Article 5-like commitments, not political assurances.
Dayton Agreement and IFOR Peacekeeping (1995)
1995-2004What Happened
After 3.5 years of Bosnian War, US-brokered Dayton Agreement ended fighting and established a complex power-sharing government. NATO deployed 60,000 peacekeeping troops (IFOR) with robust rules of engagement to enforce military aspects of the agreement. The Implementation Force had clear command structure, overwhelming military capability versus local forces, and political unity among NATO members. Peacekeepers remained for nearly a decade, preventing conflict resumption.
Outcome
Short term: Immediate end to active combat; peacekeepers successfully separated forces and enforced ceasefire.
Long term: Fragile peace held for 30 years despite ethnic tensions; Bosnia remains dysfunctional but not at war.
Why It's Relevant
The model Coalition of the Willing references—but Ukraine faces a nuclear-armed adversary, not local militias, making enforcement exponentially harder.
Korean Armistice and DMZ (1953-present)
1953-presentWhat Happened
After three years of Korean War, armistice agreement established a demilitarized zone patrolled by both sides and neutral nations. No peace treaty was ever signed—technically still at war. The DMZ has been monitored by UN forces, including Swiss and Swedish peacekeepers, for 72 years. Massive US troop presence in South Korea (28,500 currently) provided credible deterrence. Multiple violations and incidents occurred, but full-scale war never resumed.
Outcome
Short term: Ended active hostilities and prisoner exchanges; created 2.5-mile-wide buffer zone.
Long term: Longest-standing armistice in modern history; frozen conflict prevented from reigniting by permanent military presence and US security guarantee.
Why It's Relevant
Shows demilitarized zones can work with credible enforcement—but required permanent US troop deployment and acceptance of indefinite division, not eventual reunification.