The renewed push by Washington to broker an end to the war in Ukraine has entered a more delicate and politically charged phase, with U.S. President Donald Trump publicly signaling that negotiations with Kyiv are closer to a breakthrough even as unresolved territorial and security questions continue to cast long shadows over any final settlement. Trump’s assertion that the United States and Ukraine are “a lot closer” to a peace deal reflects not only incremental progress at the negotiating table, but also a strategic recalibration by Washington as it seeks to balance battlefield realities, European interests, and Moscow’s red lines.
The talks, underscored by Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Florida, suggest that the administration is attempting to convert diplomatic momentum into a framework that could halt active hostilities without demanding an outright military resolution. Yet the president’s acknowledgment of “thorny issues” points to the core dilemma: peace is now being discussed less as an ideal outcome and more as a negotiated compromise shaped by power, geography, and endurance.
Security Guarantees as the Central Bargaining Chip
At the heart of the negotiations lies the question of how Ukraine would be secured once active fighting stops. For Kyiv, security guarantees are not a supplementary issue but the defining condition for any agreement that freezes or ends the war. Zelenskiy has framed these guarantees as the key milestone toward lasting peace, reflecting Ukraine’s fear that a poorly structured settlement could merely pause hostilities rather than prevent their return.
Trump’s remarks indicate substantial progress on this front, though his language has been more cautious than Kyiv’s. By emphasizing that European countries would shoulder a significant portion of post-war security responsibilities, with U.S. backing rather than leadership, Washington appears intent on reshaping the burden-sharing model that has defined Western support since the war began. This shift aligns with Trump’s broader view that Europe must assume greater responsibility for regional security, even as the United States remains the central diplomatic broker.
European leaders have echoed this emphasis. French President Emmanuel Macron has highlighted the role of a coalition of willing states in providing concrete security contributions, signaling that any guarantees would likely involve multinational commitments rather than formal treaty obligations. This approach reflects political constraints within NATO and the European Union, where consensus on permanent troop deployments remains elusive.
Donbas and the Geometry of Compromise
While security arrangements may be nearing consensus, the future of eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region remains the most intractable obstacle. Trump’s acknowledgment that territorial questions are unresolved underscores how deeply contested the issue remains, not only between Kyiv and Moscow but also among Ukraine’s partners. The Donbas is no longer merely a battlefield; it has become the symbolic and strategic fulcrum upon which the credibility of any peace deal will rest.
The United States has floated compromise proposals that stop short of formal territorial recognition while accepting de facto realities on the ground. Ideas such as freezing current battle lines or establishing special economic arrangements are designed to create space for agreement without forcing Ukraine to publicly concede sovereignty. Yet for Kyiv, even temporary withdrawals carry immense political risk, requiring either parliamentary approval or a national referendum.
Russia, for its part, continues to insist on full control of the Donbas, framing delay as an unnecessary prolongation of the conflict. Trump’s description of the issue as “very tough” reflects an awareness that any settlement perceived as imposed or premature could undermine Ukraine’s internal stability, even if it ends large-scale fighting.
Parallel Channels and the Moscow Factor
Complicating the negotiations is Trump’s direct engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has introduced an additional layer of diplomacy running alongside talks with Kyiv. The lengthy call between Trump and Putin before the Zelenskiy meeting signals Washington’s belief that progress requires simultaneous engagement with both parties rather than sequential negotiation.
Trump’s public comments about Putin’s willingness to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and supply energy underscore an effort to portray Moscow as a stakeholder in post-war stability rather than a perpetual adversary. This narrative, while controversial, reflects a strategic calculation: encouraging Russian buy-in may be essential to enforcing any ceasefire or settlement. At the same time, it risks unsettling allies who fear that concessions could reward aggression.
The Kremlin’s supportive tone toward Trump’s mediation suggests that Moscow sees potential advantages in the current diplomatic configuration. Russia’s opposition to extended ceasefires and foreign troop deployments indicates a preference for rapid political decisions that lock in territorial gains rather than open-ended processes that could erode them.
Infrastructure, Energy, and the Nuclear Dimension
Beyond territory and troops, negotiations have expanded to include critical infrastructure, most notably the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Discussions around shared control or operational arrangements highlight how energy security has become intertwined with peace talks. For Ukraine, restoring power generation is essential to economic recovery; for Russia, control over energy assets represents leverage.
Trump’s comments about progress at the plant suggest that confidence-building measures, such as localized ceasefires around sensitive sites, are being used to demonstrate good faith. The absence of recent attacks on the facility has been framed as a positive signal, even as broader hostilities continue elsewhere. This incremental approach reflects a recognition that comprehensive peace may need to be built through smaller, verifiable steps rather than a single sweeping agreement.
Europe’s Role and the Limits of Unity
European involvement in the talks underscores both the importance and the limitations of continental unity. Leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen have emphasized that ironclad security guarantees are paramount, reflecting Europe’s proximity to the conflict and its exposure to spillover risks. Yet Europe’s reliance on U.S. mediation also highlights its constrained capacity to act independently at this stage.
The emphasis on urgency from European capitals reflects growing concern that prolonged uncertainty could entrench divisions within Ukraine and strain European economies already grappling with energy transitions and defense spending. At the same time, European leaders remain cautious about endorsing any arrangement that appears to legitimize territorial changes achieved through force.
The diplomatic push comes against the backdrop of intensified military pressure, with recent large-scale attacks underscoring the volatility of the moment. Zelenskiy has framed such strikes as attempts to shape negotiations through force, while Trump has expressed belief that both sides remain serious about peace. This tension between battlefield escalation and diplomatic engagement illustrates the paradox of the current phase: violence and negotiation are unfolding simultaneously, each influencing the other.
Russia’s recent advances and Ukraine’s infrastructural vulnerabilities add urgency to talks, but they also complicate them. Any agreement reached under duress risks being perceived as coerced, potentially undermining its durability. Trump’s assertion that clarity will emerge within weeks suggests a desire to capitalize on momentum before conditions shift again, either militarily or politically.
As negotiations continue, the claim that the United States and Ukraine are “a lot closer” to peace captures both progress and fragility. The narrowing of gaps on security arrangements contrasts with the enduring difficulty of territorial compromise, while parallel engagement with Moscow adds both opportunity and risk. The outcome will depend not only on diplomatic skill, but on whether all parties can reconcile the immediate need to stop the war with the long-term imperatives of sovereignty, security, and stability.
(Source:www.aljazera.com)
The talks, underscored by Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Florida, suggest that the administration is attempting to convert diplomatic momentum into a framework that could halt active hostilities without demanding an outright military resolution. Yet the president’s acknowledgment of “thorny issues” points to the core dilemma: peace is now being discussed less as an ideal outcome and more as a negotiated compromise shaped by power, geography, and endurance.
Security Guarantees as the Central Bargaining Chip
At the heart of the negotiations lies the question of how Ukraine would be secured once active fighting stops. For Kyiv, security guarantees are not a supplementary issue but the defining condition for any agreement that freezes or ends the war. Zelenskiy has framed these guarantees as the key milestone toward lasting peace, reflecting Ukraine’s fear that a poorly structured settlement could merely pause hostilities rather than prevent their return.
Trump’s remarks indicate substantial progress on this front, though his language has been more cautious than Kyiv’s. By emphasizing that European countries would shoulder a significant portion of post-war security responsibilities, with U.S. backing rather than leadership, Washington appears intent on reshaping the burden-sharing model that has defined Western support since the war began. This shift aligns with Trump’s broader view that Europe must assume greater responsibility for regional security, even as the United States remains the central diplomatic broker.
European leaders have echoed this emphasis. French President Emmanuel Macron has highlighted the role of a coalition of willing states in providing concrete security contributions, signaling that any guarantees would likely involve multinational commitments rather than formal treaty obligations. This approach reflects political constraints within NATO and the European Union, where consensus on permanent troop deployments remains elusive.
Donbas and the Geometry of Compromise
While security arrangements may be nearing consensus, the future of eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region remains the most intractable obstacle. Trump’s acknowledgment that territorial questions are unresolved underscores how deeply contested the issue remains, not only between Kyiv and Moscow but also among Ukraine’s partners. The Donbas is no longer merely a battlefield; it has become the symbolic and strategic fulcrum upon which the credibility of any peace deal will rest.
The United States has floated compromise proposals that stop short of formal territorial recognition while accepting de facto realities on the ground. Ideas such as freezing current battle lines or establishing special economic arrangements are designed to create space for agreement without forcing Ukraine to publicly concede sovereignty. Yet for Kyiv, even temporary withdrawals carry immense political risk, requiring either parliamentary approval or a national referendum.
Russia, for its part, continues to insist on full control of the Donbas, framing delay as an unnecessary prolongation of the conflict. Trump’s description of the issue as “very tough” reflects an awareness that any settlement perceived as imposed or premature could undermine Ukraine’s internal stability, even if it ends large-scale fighting.
Parallel Channels and the Moscow Factor
Complicating the negotiations is Trump’s direct engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has introduced an additional layer of diplomacy running alongside talks with Kyiv. The lengthy call between Trump and Putin before the Zelenskiy meeting signals Washington’s belief that progress requires simultaneous engagement with both parties rather than sequential negotiation.
Trump’s public comments about Putin’s willingness to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and supply energy underscore an effort to portray Moscow as a stakeholder in post-war stability rather than a perpetual adversary. This narrative, while controversial, reflects a strategic calculation: encouraging Russian buy-in may be essential to enforcing any ceasefire or settlement. At the same time, it risks unsettling allies who fear that concessions could reward aggression.
The Kremlin’s supportive tone toward Trump’s mediation suggests that Moscow sees potential advantages in the current diplomatic configuration. Russia’s opposition to extended ceasefires and foreign troop deployments indicates a preference for rapid political decisions that lock in territorial gains rather than open-ended processes that could erode them.
Infrastructure, Energy, and the Nuclear Dimension
Beyond territory and troops, negotiations have expanded to include critical infrastructure, most notably the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Discussions around shared control or operational arrangements highlight how energy security has become intertwined with peace talks. For Ukraine, restoring power generation is essential to economic recovery; for Russia, control over energy assets represents leverage.
Trump’s comments about progress at the plant suggest that confidence-building measures, such as localized ceasefires around sensitive sites, are being used to demonstrate good faith. The absence of recent attacks on the facility has been framed as a positive signal, even as broader hostilities continue elsewhere. This incremental approach reflects a recognition that comprehensive peace may need to be built through smaller, verifiable steps rather than a single sweeping agreement.
Europe’s Role and the Limits of Unity
European involvement in the talks underscores both the importance and the limitations of continental unity. Leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen have emphasized that ironclad security guarantees are paramount, reflecting Europe’s proximity to the conflict and its exposure to spillover risks. Yet Europe’s reliance on U.S. mediation also highlights its constrained capacity to act independently at this stage.
The emphasis on urgency from European capitals reflects growing concern that prolonged uncertainty could entrench divisions within Ukraine and strain European economies already grappling with energy transitions and defense spending. At the same time, European leaders remain cautious about endorsing any arrangement that appears to legitimize territorial changes achieved through force.
The diplomatic push comes against the backdrop of intensified military pressure, with recent large-scale attacks underscoring the volatility of the moment. Zelenskiy has framed such strikes as attempts to shape negotiations through force, while Trump has expressed belief that both sides remain serious about peace. This tension between battlefield escalation and diplomatic engagement illustrates the paradox of the current phase: violence and negotiation are unfolding simultaneously, each influencing the other.
Russia’s recent advances and Ukraine’s infrastructural vulnerabilities add urgency to talks, but they also complicate them. Any agreement reached under duress risks being perceived as coerced, potentially undermining its durability. Trump’s assertion that clarity will emerge within weeks suggests a desire to capitalize on momentum before conditions shift again, either militarily or politically.
As negotiations continue, the claim that the United States and Ukraine are “a lot closer” to peace captures both progress and fragility. The narrowing of gaps on security arrangements contrasts with the enduring difficulty of territorial compromise, while parallel engagement with Moscow adds both opportunity and risk. The outcome will depend not only on diplomatic skill, but on whether all parties can reconcile the immediate need to stop the war with the long-term imperatives of sovereignty, security, and stability.
(Source:www.aljazera.com)
Homepage
Send to a friend
Printable version
Share
