Table of Contents
The ongoing peace talks between Ukraine and Russia highlight that the territorial disputes are the most significant challenge in negotiations. President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that resolving these territorial issues is crucial for achieving a comprehensive agreement to end the conflict. At the same time, Vladimir Putin has shown support for a controversial plan introduced during the previous U.S. administration, which could serve as a potential framework for settlement. However, Ukraine remains resolute in its refusal to cede any land.
The current state of peace negotiations
On November 19, a new round of peace discussions began, focusing on efforts by Russia and the United States to create a framework to end the war. A leaked 28-point proposal triggered immediate criticism, with many branding it a mere wishlist from the Kremlin. Shortly after, President Putin publicly endorsed this plan as a potential basis for resolving the conflict.
Shifting dynamics in the talks
The negotiations have been chaotic, marked by frequent leaks to the press and representatives traveling worldwide for in-person discussions. Ukrainian President Zelensky, along with his European allies, aims to refine the original proposal, but a revised version has not yet been made public. Fundamental issues concerning territory continue to obstruct progress.
President Putin insists that Ukrainian forces must withdraw from the contested regions of the Donbas, a stipulation Kyiv has firmly rejected. Zelensky has emphasized that territorial disputes represent the most significant obstacle in the ongoing negotiations. Following a lengthy five-hour meeting at the Kremlin on December 2, U.S. negotiators, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, failed to obtain any concessions from Putin. Kremlin officials reiterated that territory remains Russia’s primary concern.
Competing interests and goals
The U.S. administration’s strategy has created a volatile environment for negotiations, as officials fluctuate between pressuring both Ukraine and Russia. This approach, initially proposed by Keith Kellogg, former envoy to Ukraine under Trump, has resulted in ambiguity regarding the ultimate objectives of each party in these discussions.
In earlier stages, both Moscow and Kyiv sought to convince Trump that the other was the primary obstacle to peace, thereby justifying potential U.S. sanctions. However, recent developments indicate that both parties may not be fundamentally opposed to peace, and their terms for resolution could be aligning. Factors such as battlefield dynamics, economic conditions, and domestic politics appear to be influencing their positions.
Territorial control and strategic importance
A leaked document from the Trump administration addresses the matter of territory in point 21. President Putin has clearly expressed his desire to maintain control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the Donbas, though he has yet to formally renounce ambitions regarding the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. Following a meeting with Trump in Alaska, Kremlin officials have moderated their demands concerning the complete transfer of all four territories.
In a private conversation, Witkoff suggested a readiness to negotiate the status of Donetsk, potentially involving a land swap, while not addressing the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Nonetheless, uncertainties remain about whether Putin would accept terms that include a demilitarized zone or lack international recognition of these regions as Russian territory. A Russian official recently reiterated three non-negotiable conditions for Moscow: maintaining control of the Donbas, restricting Ukraine’s military capabilities, and securing acknowledgment of territorial claims from the U.S. and Europe.
Implications for future engagement
The discussions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine remain tense, with Kyiv firmly opposing the idea of a land swap. President Zelensky has stated that any discussions about territorial changes should only occur after a ceasefire is established. In contrast, representatives from the Kremlin maintain that a ceasefire is dependent on Ukraine withdrawing its forces from contested regions.
When assessing the current negotiations against statements made a year prior, some progress is evident. Ukraine had previously called for a peace framework that demanded a full restoration of its territorial integrity and the withdrawal of Russian troops. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s stance has not changed, insisting on immediate Ukrainian troop withdrawals from the Donbas and surrounding areas.
The Ukrainian-controlled regions of the Donbas, particularly around Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, offer limited strategic advantages compared to the territories currently occupied by Russia. A proposed 28-point plan indicates that Russia would agree to relinquish territories beyond Crimea and other regions it controls.
Despite the intricacies of this ongoing conflict, finding common ground remains essential for both parties. The Donbas issue has become a central point in negotiations, often overshadowing broader security guarantees that could also be addressed. The continuation of hostilities will likely influence both sides’ positions as they seek a sustainable resolution.