Overview
In late 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace push for Ukraine entered an intense phase: a U.S.–drafted, 28‑point proposal—developed by special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner with Russian input—moved from back‑channel talks with the Kremlin into marathon negotiating sessions with Ukrainian officials in Florida. The Miami‑area meetings, now in their third straight day, bring together Witkoff and Kushner with Ukraine’s national security chief Rustem Umerov and army chief Gen. Andrii Hnatov to hammer out a security framework, deterrence guarantees, and language on contested territories as a basis for a possible ceasefire.
The stakes are high and the politics fraught. Russia has just rejected earlier versions of the U.S. plan after five hours of talks between Vladimir Putin and the Trump team in Moscow, even as Russian forces escalate missile and drone attacks across Ukraine. European leaders, alarmed by reports that Washington might trade Ukrainian territory for peace, are pressing for unity while quietly questioning U.S. motives. Kyiv, under severe military and financial strain, is engaging in the Miami talks but insists that any settlement must safeguard sovereignty and avoid formal recognition of Russia’s territorial gains, leaving a narrow and contested path toward what Washington calls a “durable and just peace.”
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
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.
Ukraine’s government is balancing existential security needs, domestic political constraints, and international pressure in evaluating U.S. peace proposals.
Russia controls Crimea and significant parts of eastern and southern Ukraine and is seeking a settlement that codifies its gains and limits NATO expansion.
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
-
Zelenskyy Holds 'Substantive' Call with Witkoff and Kushner
Public StatementUkrainian 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.
-
Third Straight Day of Miami Talks Amid Intensified Russian Strikes
DiplomacyMiami 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.
-
Second Day of Miami Talks Focuses on Security Framework
DiplomacyU.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
DiplomacyU.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
DiplomacyPutin 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
DiplomacyRubio, 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
RevelationDetails 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 NegotiationAxios 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
DiplomacyPutin 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 StatementFollowing 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
DiplomacySecretary 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Historical Context
The Minsk Agreements (2014–2015)
September 2014 – February 2015What 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
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 1995What 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
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
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.