Trump’s Envoys Push Miami Track for Ukraine Peace as War Rages On
Force in Play
A revised 20‑point U.S.–Ukraine framework, 90% agreed and backed by concrete security guarantees, advances toward a possible settlement as Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders coordinate intensively while Russia signals conditional engagement
A revised 20‑point U.S.–Ukraine framework, 90% agreed and backed by concrete security guarantees, advances toward a possible settlement as Trump, Zelenskyy, and European leaders coordinate intensively while Russia signals conditional engagement
By late December 2025, months of intensive U.S.–Ukraine–Russia shuttle diplomacy produced a breakthrough: the controversial 28‑point plan that had alarmed Kyiv and European allies was replaced by a revised 20‑point framework that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said was "90 percent agreed" with Washington, including "100 percent" consensus on U.S.–Ukraine security guarantees. The new framework—hammered out through parallel Miami sessions with Ukrainian officials led by Rustem Umerov and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, then refined in a December 28 Mar‑a‑Lago summit between Trump and Zelenskyy—offers Ukraine NATO Article 5‑style security guarantees for at least 15 years, maintains Ukraine's 800,000‑strong military, and envisions a demilitarized zone along current battle lines in Donetsk overseen by international monitors. On January 8, 2026, Zelenskyy announced that the bilateral U.S.–Ukraine security guarantee document is now "essentially ready" to be finalized at the highest level with President Trump.
The diplomatic momentum intensified dramatically in early January 2026, culminating in a January 6 Paris summit where the Coalition of the Willing—35 nations including 27 heads of state—adopted the Paris Declaration pledging multilayered security guarantees for Ukraine. France and the U.K. committed to deploying up to 15,000 troops combined and establishing military hubs across Ukraine to enforce any ceasefire. On January 7, Trump advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Russian envoy Dmitriev at the U.S. Embassy in Paris and handed him the agreed peace plan for transmission to Putin. Yet the fundamental obstacle deepened immediately: Russia on January 8 categorically rejected the Coalition's peacekeeping proposals, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemning the "axis of war" and declaring foreign troops would be "legitimate military targets," while Security Council chair Dmitry Medvedev threatened on January 10 to strike European peacekeepers with Oreshnik missiles. As Trump's "few weeks" timeline approaches, Putin continues to insist on a comprehensive settlement before any ceasefire and shows no willingness to accept NATO-country troops on Ukrainian soil.
Slimmed down from controversial 28-point plan; Zelenskyy says 90% agreed with U.S., focuses on security guarantees, military capacity, and demilitarized zones rather than territorial concessions.
90%
Agreement on peace framework (per Zelenskyy)
Ukrainian president reported 90% consensus on 20-point plan and 100% agreement on U.S.–Ukraine security guarantees after Mar-a-Lago summit with Trump on Dec. 28.
15 years
Initial U.S. security guarantee commitment
U.S. offers Ukraine NATO Article 5‑style security guarantees for 15 years (with possibility of extension to 50 years); would require Congressional approval and allied ratification.
800K
Ukrainian military strength preserved
Revised 20-point plan allows Ukraine to maintain current armed forces levels of 800,000 troops, up from 600,000 cap in earlier 28-point proposal.
≈4 years
Duration of full‑scale war in Ukraine
Russia's invasion began in February 2022; by early 2026, cumulative casualties and infrastructure damage underpin urgency for negotiated settlement.
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
Steve Witkoff
U.S. Special Envoy for Peace in Ukraine (Lead U.S. negotiator coordinating parallel tracks with Russia and Ukraine; reporting progress to Trump)
Jared Kushner
Senior Adviser to President Trump (Senior adviser co-leading U.S. peace framework design and high-level negotiations)
Rustem Umerov
Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council; chief negotiator (Chief Ukrainian negotiator coordinating with U.S., Russia, and European partners on peace framework)
Gen. Andrii Hnatov
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Military lead in negotiating future security architecture)
Volodymyr Zelenskyy
President of Ukraine (Ukrainian president balancing domestic constraints with intensive diplomacy; reports 90% agreement on peace framework)
Donald Trump
President of the United States (U.S. president driving peace initiative; projects optimism while acknowledging 'thorny issues' remain)
Vladimir Putin
President of the Russian Federation (Russian president maintaining categorical rejection of NATO-country peacekeepers; received U.S.-Ukraine peace plan via envoy Dmitriev on Jan. 7, response pending)
Marco Rubio
U.S. Secretary of State (Formal head of U.S. diplomacy, supporting but also constraining envoy track)
Organizations Involved
UN
United States Government
Foreign Government
Status: Primary mediator shifting from controversial 28-point plan to revised 20-point framework with concrete security guarantees
The U.S. government under President Donald Trump is attempting to broker a comprehensive settlement to the Russo‑Ukrainian war through direct talks with both Moscow and Kyiv.
GO
Government of Ukraine
Government Body
Status: Negotiating revised framework that addresses sovereignty concerns; reports 90% agreement with U.S. on peace plan and 100% on security guarantees
Ukraine’s government is balancing existential security needs, domestic political constraints, and international pressure in evaluating U.S. peace proposals.
RU
Russian Federation
Foreign Government
Status: Categorically rejecting European peacekeeping proposals; threatening foreign troops would be 'legitimate military targets'; received U.S.-Ukraine peace plan Jan. 7 via Dmitriev
Russia controls Crimea and significant parts of eastern and southern Ukraine and is seeking a settlement that codifies its gains and limits NATO expansion.
EU
European Union
Supranational Union
Status: Leading security guarantee architecture through Coalition of the Willing; France and UK committed to troop deployments and military hubs to enforce any ceasefire
The EU provides major financial and military support to Ukraine and is pushing for a settlement that upholds European security principles and avoids rewarding aggression.
Timeline
Russia Threatens Oreshnik Missile Strikes on European Peacekeepers
Military Threat
Russian Security Council Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev threatens Russia could use Oreshnik missiles to strike European or NATO troops that deploy to post-war Ukraine as part of security guarantees, escalating Moscow's warnings against foreign peacekeeping forces.
Russian Duma Chair Warns of 'Inevitable' Retaliation for Red Line Violations
Public Statement
State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky states Russian retaliation against future 'blatant violations of red lines' regarding Western involvement in Ukraine is 'inevitable,' continuing Moscow's rejection of peacekeeping proposals.
Zelenskyy announces bilateral U.S.–Ukraine security guarantee document is now 'essentially ready for finalization at the highest level with President Trump' following Paris talks. New chief of staff Kyrylo Budanov says 'there are already concrete results' but not all information can be made public.
Russia Categorically Rejects European Peacekeeping Plan
Diplomacy
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounces Coalition of the Willing peacekeeping proposals as forming an 'axis of war,' declaring Western troops in Ukraine would be 'legitimate military targets' and a 'direct threat' to Russia. Moscow categorically rejects any NATO-country peacekeeping forces on Ukrainian soil.
UK/France Announce Planning for Up to 15,000 Troop Deployment
Military
The Times reports UK and France preparing to deploy combined force of up to 15,000 troops to Ukraine post-ceasefire—significantly fewer than original 64,000-troop Coalition vision. UK assessment shows fewer than 7,500 British troops feasible due to army size constraints; forces would be stationed in western Ukraine for training and infrastructure support.
Trump Advisers Deliver Peace Plan to Russian Envoy in Paris
Diplomacy
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner meet Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev at U.S. Embassy in Paris, handing him the draft 20-point peace plan agreed with Ukraine for transmission to Putin. Meeting follows two days of Coalition talks with Zelenskyy and European leaders. White House seeks clear response from Putin on the proposal.
Paris Summit: European Leaders Coordinate Ukraine Security Commitments
Diplomacy
French President Emmanuel Macron hosts a "Coalition of the Willing" summit in Paris with leaders including UK's Starmer, Germany's Merz, Italy's Meloni, and European Commission President von der Leyen to coordinate concrete security guarantees and reconstruction support for Ukraine as part of any peace settlement.
Paris Declaration: 35-Nation Coalition Pledges Multilayered Security Guarantees
Diplomacy
Coalition of the Willing summit in Paris produces binding commitments from 35 countries (27 heads of state) for Ukraine security guarantees: France and UK pledge to deploy troops and establish military hubs in Ukraine to enforce ceasefire; coalition commits to continuous monitoring mechanism, long-term military aid, multinational force to rebuild Ukraine's armed forces, and binding commitments to restore peace if Russia attacks again. Trump envoys Witkoff and Kushner attend.
France, UK Commit to Deploy Troops to Ukraine as Ceasefire Enforcers
Military
French President Macron announces "several thousand" French soldiers could deploy to Ukraine to maintain peace; France and UK sign Declaration of Intent to establish 'military hubs' across Ukraine with protected facilities for weapons and equipment. UK PM Starmer warns "Putin is not showing that he is ready for peace." Russia categorically rejects any NATO-country troop deployments on Ukrainian soil.
Kyiv Hosts Coalition National Security Advisers on Peace Framework
Diplomacy
National security advisers from Europe and allied countries meet in Kyiv, opened by Rustem Umerov, to work through details of the 20‑point peace plan (90% agreed) and discuss security guarantees, prosperity packages, and military‑political issues. Umerov emphasizes working through how guarantees will operate on land, sea, and in the air.
Zelenskyy New Year Address: Ukrainians Want Peace, But Not at Any Cost
Public Statement
In his New Year 2026 address, Zelenskyy highlights peace progress—90% agreement on 20-point plan and 100% on security guarantees—but stresses Ukraine seeks "an end to the war but not the end of Ukraine" and will not accept peace at any price. Announces intensive January diplomacy schedule.
Trump–Zelenskyy Mar‑a‑Lago Summit: 'Maybe Very Close' to Peace Deal
Diplomacy
Trump hosts Zelenskyy at Mar‑a‑Lago in critical summit where both leaders project optimism about peace prospects. Zelenskyy reports 20‑point framework is 90–95% agreed and security guarantees 100% agreed. Trump says teams are "getting a lot closer, maybe very close" and indicates he may extend U.S. security guarantees beyond 15 years. However, both acknowledge "thorny issues" remain, especially on territory, and Trump says "in a few weeks we will know one way or the other."
Zelenskyy Publicly Unveils 20‑Point Peace Plan Details
Public Statement
For the first time, Zelenskyy presents journalists with details of the revised 20‑point framework that replaced the controversial 28‑point plan. The new plan includes NATO Article 5‑style security guarantees, maintains Ukraine's 800,000‑strong military (vs. 600,000 cap in earlier version), envisions demilitarized zone in Donetsk with international monitors, and requires Russian non‑aggression commitments.
U.S.–Russia Miami Talks: Dmitriev Meets Witkoff, Kushner on Revised Plan
Diplomacy
Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev holds second day of talks in Miami with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and White House official Josh Gruenbaum on the revised U.S. peace proposal. Witkoff calls discussions 'productive and constructive' and says Russia is 'fully committed to achieving peace,' but Kremlin aides label Ukrainian and European proposals 'unconstructional' and unacceptable, signaling continued gaps.
Russian Envoy Dmitriev Arrives in Miami for Talks with Trump Team
Diplomacy
Kirill Dmitriev, Putin's special envoy and head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, arrives in Miami for weekend talks with Witkoff and Kushner. The session comes more than two weeks after the Witkoff–Kushner Moscow visit and is intended to present Russia with progress made in U.S.–Ukraine talks and seek Moscow's agreement to the updated proposal.
Third Straight Day of Miami Talks Amid Intensified Russian Strikes
Diplomacy
Miami meetings enter a third day as Witkoff and Kushner continue talks with Umerov and Gen. Hnatov on a 'durable and just peace' framework, including deterrence and security guarantees. At the same time, Russia launches a massive drone and missile barrage across Ukraine, and Ukrainian drones hit targets in multiple Russian regions, underlining the gap between battlefield escalation and diplomatic efforts.
Zelenskyy Holds 'Substantive' Call with Witkoff and Kushner
Public Statement
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy reports a “substantive” phone call with Witkoff and Kushner following the Miami meetings, saying they agreed on next steps and formats for further dialogue. He stresses that practical proposals on peace, security, and reconstruction must be worked through in depth beyond what can be achieved over the phone.
Second Day of Miami Talks Focuses on Security Framework
Diplomacy
U.S. and Ukrainian officials hold a second day of talks in Florida, issuing a joint statement that 'real progress' depends on Russia’s willingness to commit to long‑term peace. Discussions also cover Ukraine’s post‑war reconstruction and the deterrence capabilities required to sustain a settlement.
Miami Round Opens as Europe Frets Over U.S. Motives
Diplomacy
U.S. envoy Witkoff and Kushner meet Ukraine’s Rustem Umerov in Miami two days after the Moscow setback. A leaked European leaders’ call, reported by Der Spiegel, shows Macron and Merz warning Zelenskyy to be cautious about U.S. intentions, fearing Washington may push for territorial concessions.
Moscow Rejects Latest U.S. Proposal After Five-Hour Meeting
Diplomacy
Putin meets Witkoff and Kushner for five hours in the Kremlin to review several versions of the U.S. proposal. Russian officials say some elements are acceptable but reject overall compromise, insisting on Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbas and other demands. The failure shifts focus back to talks with Kyiv in Miami.
Florida Talks Seek to Soften U.S. Plan for Kyiv
Diplomacy
Rubio, Witkoff, and Kushner meet Umerov, Hnatov, and other Ukrainian officials in Hallandale Beach, Florida. The sides report 'productive' discussions revising the plan to stress sovereignty, security guarantees, and prosperity, though key issues of territory and NATO aspirations remain unresolved.
Leak of U.S. Plan Sparks Outrage in Kyiv and Europe
Revelation
Details of the 28‑point plan become public, including provisions recognizing Russian control of Crimea and Donbas and constraining NATO expansion. Ukrainian and European officials criticize the proposal as too favorable to Moscow and warn it could undermine European security norms.
Secret 28‑Point U.S. Peace Plan Drafted in Miami
Back-Channel Negotiation
Axios reveals that Witkoff, Kushner, and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev spent Oct. 24–26 in Miami drafting a 28‑point plan that would freeze the front line, leave Russia in control of Crimea and all of Donetsk and Luhansk, and create demilitarized zones in parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Umerov contributes on a 'technical' basis but later says he did not endorse the content.
Putin and Witkoff Hold 'Constructive' Kremlin Talks
Diplomacy
Putin and Witkoff meet for roughly three hours in Moscow as part of Trump’s push for a leader‑level summit with Putin and Zelenskyy. U.S. officials say they now better understand conditions under which Russia might end the war, but admit major obstacles remain, especially over territory.
Trump Calls for Russia–Ukraine Summit After Moscow Meeting
Public Statement
Following a three‑hour Kremlin meeting between Putin and Witkoff, Trump publicly urges Russia and Ukraine to hold a high‑level summit 'to finish it off,' claiming the sides are very close to a deal. Analysts warn that no concrete ceasefire terms are on the table and territorial questions remain unresolved.
Riyadh U.S.–Russia Talks Launch Trump Peace Track
Diplomacy
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, envoy Steve Witkoff, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov in Riyadh. They agree to establish high‑level teams to work on ending the war and normalizing relations, in talks that exclude Ukraine and EU states and spark backlash in Kyiv.
Scenarios
1
A Trump-Brokered 'Frozen Front Line' Peace Deal
Discussed by: Axios, Reuters, The Guardian, Kyiv Post, various policy analysts
Under this scenario, the Miami talks culminate in a U.S.–Ukraine understanding on a revised plan that Trump’s envoys then present to Moscow in another round of Kremlin negotiations. The deal would likely freeze the current front line, implicitly acknowledging Russian control of Crimea and much of Donbas, while establishing demilitarized zones and long‑term security guarantees for the rest of Ukraine. NATO membership might be deferred or conditioned, but Ukraine would receive robust arms, air defenses, and economic support. Implementation would require Putin to accept a ceasefire and limited withdrawals and for Zelenskyy to sell a painful compromise domestically, framed as the least‑bad option to save lives and secure Western backing. Trump would claim a major diplomatic victory. The outcome would resemble other “frozen conflict” arrangements, stabilizing the front but leaving core disputes unresolved and subject to future crises.
2
Talks Stall; War and Western Fractures Deepen
Discussed by: Skeptical European officials; security analysts quoted in Western press
In this scenario, Miami and subsequent rounds fail to close the gaps on territory and security. Putin, buoyed by battlefield gains and ongoing missile and drone campaigns, calculates he can extract more through continued fighting. Zelenskyy maintains his refusal to formally recognize Russian annexations, while U.S. domestic politics constrain Trump’s ability to offer long‑term security guarantees or reconstruction funding. European mistrust of the U.S. role—already visible in the leaked Macron–Merz call—could deepen if Washington appears to pressure Kyiv for concessions while Moscow escalates attacks. The result would be a prolonged, high‑intensity war with growing fissures within the Western coalition over sanctions, arms supplies, and whether to back or block future U.S. proposals perceived as too favorable to Russia.
3
Staged Settlement: Ceasefire First, Status Questions Later
Discussed by: Some U.S. and European diplomats; think‑tank commentary on 'armistice‑first' models
A more incremental outcome would see the parties agree to an armistice that halts large‑scale hostilities and establishes monitoring mechanisms and demilitarized zones, but explicitly defers final decisions on sovereignty and status of occupied regions. Ukraine would not formally recognize Russian annexations; Russia would keep de facto control over certain areas, but both sides would accept a monitored ceasefire and limits on long‑range strikes. This model echoes the Korean Armistice and, to a degree, the Minsk arrangements—reducing violence while leaving political disputes unresolved. It might be more domestically survivable for Zelenskyy than a formal territorial concession, and more acceptable to Putin than full withdrawal. The risk is that, as in Korea or Donbas, the conflict hardens into a long‑term frozen standoff prone to periodic flare‑ups.
4
Ukrainian Domestic Backlash Topples or Weakens Zelenskyy
Discussed by: Ukrainian commentators and opposition figures; European officials worried about 'big danger' to Zelenskyy
If Zelenskyy is perceived at home as yielding too much under U.S. pressure—particularly on territorial recognition or neutrality—he could face mass protests, defections from his parliamentary bloc, or moves to curtail his authority. The corruption scandal surrounding the resignation of chief of staff Andriy Yermak has already shaken domestic confidence, and a divisive peace deal could trigger a broader political crisis. Such turmoil might derail implementation of any agreement and create openings for more hardline or populist forces to gain influence, complicating relations with both the U.S. and Europe. Moscow might exploit instability to undermine Ukraine’s Western orientation or push for more favorable follow‑on terms.
5
European Counter-Framework Dilutes U.S. Lead
Discussed by: European governments, EU officials, and policy analysts
Reacting to fears that Trump’s plan sacrifices core European security principles, EU powers—led by France and Germany—could formulate their own framework that tightens conditions on sanctions relief, emphasizes accountability and reconstruction funding, and leaves NATO’s door ajar for Ukraine. They might seek to merge this with or supersede the U.S. track, insisting that any settlement be endorsed in a wider Euro‑Atlantic format. This would not necessarily block U.S. diplomacy but could complicate Trump’s ability to secure a grand bargain if Putin insists on a primarily Washington‑Moscow channel. It could, however, give Kyiv more leverage and reduce the risk of a deal that Europe sees as undermining its own security architecture.
6
20‑Point Framework Adopted With Russian Conditional Acceptance
Discussed by: Trump administration officials, Ukrainian government statements, optimistic analysts
Under this scenario, Russia conditionally accepts the revised 20‑point framework after further negotiations in January 2026, leading to a ceasefire along current battle lines with demilitarized zones monitored by international forces. Ukraine receives robust NATO Article 5‑style security guarantees backed by U.S. Congressional approval and European allies, maintains an 800,000‑strong military, and gains concrete reconstruction commitments. Territorial status in Donbas and Crimea remains unresolved but frozen, with neither formal Ukrainian recognition of Russian annexations nor Russian withdrawal. The deal stabilizes the front, saves lives, and gives Zelenskyy political cover domestically through strong security guarantees, while allowing Trump to claim a diplomatic victory and Putin to portray battlefield gains as locked in.
7
Putin Rejects Framework; Diplomatic Window Closes
Discussed by: Kremlin hardliners, skeptical European officials, military analysts
Despite progress on the 20‑point plan, Russia ultimately rejects key provisions—particularly the deployment of international monitors or NATO‑country forces, Ukrainian military strength at 800,000, and security guarantees Moscow views as NATO membership by another name. Putin calculates that continued military pressure will extract more favorable terms, insisting on full Ukrainian withdrawal from Donetsk and Luhansk and formal recognition of annexations. Trump's diplomatic push stalls by late January 2026, European‑U.S. coordination frays, and the war grinds on with no clear path to settlement in the near term.
8
Staged Implementation: Ceasefire First, Final Status Deferred
Discussed by: U.S. and European diplomats seeking incremental progress, UN officials
Recognizing that territorial disputes cannot be bridged in one step, parties agree to a phased approach: an immediate ceasefire monitored by European and potentially UN forces, demilitarized zones established along current lines, and gradual implementation of security guarantees and reconstruction aid. Final decisions on sovereignty over Crimea, Donbas, and occupied territories are explicitly deferred for future negotiations over 5–10 years. This model mirrors the Korean Armistice approach—ending large‑scale violence while leaving political disputes unresolved—and may be more domestically sustainable for all sides than a comprehensive final settlement, though it risks entrenching a frozen conflict.
Historical Context
The Minsk Agreements (2014–2015)
September 2014 – February 2015
What Happened
The Minsk I and II accords were negotiated by Ukraine, Russia, OSCE mediators, and indirectly France and Germany to halt fighting in the Donbas war. They created ceasefire lines, withdrawal zones for heavy weapons, and political steps such as special status for separatist‑held areas, but left many provisions ambiguous and were repeatedly violated.
Outcome
Short Term
Fighting decreased for periods but never fully stopped; both sides accused each other of non‑compliance, and front lines shifted again in later offensives.
Long Term
The collapse of Minsk arrangements and Russia’s subsequent 2022 full‑scale invasion convinced many Ukrainians and Western officials that poorly enforced, Russia‑favored ceasefires can entrench aggression rather than resolve it—fueling skepticism of any deal that cements territorial losses today.
Why It's Relevant Today
Minsk shows how a formally negotiated but weakly enforced settlement can become a prelude to larger war. It underscores Ukrainian fears that a new deal freezing lines while rewarding occupation could simply set the stage for renewed Russian offensives once Moscow rebuilds strength.
Dayton Accords and Bosnia Peace Process (1995)
November–December 1995
What Happened
Brokered by U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke at an Ohio air base, the Dayton Peace Agreement ended the Bosnian war by locking in a complex territorial division between the Bosniak‑Croat Federation and Republika Srpska, backed by a NATO‑led Implementation Force and later Stabilisation Force to enforce military provisions.
Outcome
Short Term
Dayton stopped large‑scale killing, separated warring forces, and enabled refugees to begin returning under international protection, though tensions and grievances remained high.
Long Term
The agreement has preserved peace for decades but entrenched ethnic power‑sharing and territorial fragmentation, making Bosnia’s governance cumbersome and its politics often gridlocked.
Why It's Relevant Today
Dayton illustrates both the potential and the trade‑offs of a U.S.‑brokered settlement that formalizes wartime territorial realities: it can end active conflict but may freeze in place an awkward, fragile political order. The Trump–Witkoff effort in Miami similarly seeks a U.S.‑designed map‑plus‑security package for Ukraine that could bring peace at the price of long‑term complexity and contested legitimacy.
The Korean Armistice Agreement (1953)
July 1953 – present (ongoing armistice)
What Happened
After three years of brutal war on the Korean Peninsula, the United Nations Command, North Korea, and Chinese forces signed an armistice that halted open hostilities, established a demilitarized zone around the front line, and set up mechanisms to manage violations—but did not produce a formal peace treaty, leaving the conflict technically unresolved.
Outcome
Short Term
The armistice dramatically reduced large‑scale fighting and civilian casualties while formalizing the division of Korea roughly along the 38th parallel.
Long Term
Nearly seven decades later, the DMZ remains one of the world’s most heavily militarized borders, with periodic crises and no comprehensive peace settlement—an enduring example of a 'frozen' but unstable conflict.
Why It's Relevant Today
Korea offers a cautionary template for an armistice‑first outcome in Ukraine: a ceasefire and buffer zones could save lives and stabilize the front but might leave a heavily militarized dividing line, unresolved sovereignty disputes, and recurring crises for decades if not coupled with a robust and legitimate political settlement.
