The U.S. claims a peace deal for Ukraine is close. But Kyiv and Moscow remain far apart

As Washington ramps up its negotiations with Ukraine and Russia and U.S. President Donald Trump expresses optimism that a peace deal could be close, there are still some very critical and contentious issues on which Kyiv and Moscow are in deep disagreement. 

There has been no consensus on control over the disputed regions in Eastern Ukraine, nor on the issue of security guarantees. 

The latter is a crucial point for Kyiv. If there is a peace deal, Ukraine wants a strong deterrent in place to prevent Russia from attacking again. If it does, Kyiv wants military backup from its allies. 

What does Ukraine want?

Ukraine wants binding security guarantees, not just assurances from its allies.

In 1994, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it agreed to give up what had been Moscow’s nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia. 

The agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum, which was not legally binding, is widely seen by Ukrainians as a failure. Moscow illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and then backed a war in Ukraine’s Donbas region. It was undeterred from then launching a full-scale invasion in 2022. 

While Ukraine has pushed to become a member of NATO — a foreign policy aspiration enshrined in its constitution — there is no consensus on that among the military alliance’s members, so instead Kyiv wants U.S.-backed guarantees. 

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands during a news conference following their meeting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, Alaska, on Aug. 15. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

What is being discussed?

One of the ideas on the table is providing Ukraine with security guarantees “inspired” by NATO’s Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and will “trigger an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.”

This idea was first floated by Italy earlier this year and brought up by Trump during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August. 

After that summit, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNN that Putin had offered a concession in that meeting, saying “that the U.S. and other European nations could effectively offer Article 5-like language to cover a security guarantee.” 

Russia has never confirmed that publicly. 

Language in the 28-point peace plan that was backed by Moscow and Washington was vague. The leaked framework said that Ukraine would be given “reliable” security guarantees and that the U.S. would be involved. 

A number of news outlets obtained copies of the European counterproposal that was drafted in response. One of its points included a U.S. security guarantee that “mirrors” Article 5. 

WATCH | Will foreign troops keep the peace?:

Former NATO director weighs in on foreign troops in Ukraine as part of peace plans

Fabrice Pothier, CEO of Rasmussen Global and a former NATO policy director, explains why Russia shouldn’t dictate the terms of security guarantees for Ukraine.

What exactly does ‘mirrors’ mean?

It’s unclear. All of these points are under discussion, and a lot hinges on to what Washington, along with Kyiv and Moscow, are willing to commit. 

Oleg Ignatov, a senior Russia analyst with the International Crisis Group, says the U.S. could strike a security agreement with Kyiv, like it has with South Korea and Japan. 

“But to do this, Trump will need to go to Congress,” Ignatov told CBC News from Brussels, where he is based. “Without Congress, it will not work.”

The 28-point plan states that if Moscow were to invade Ukraine again, that in addition to a co-ordinated military response, all global sanctions will be re-imposed, and all other benefits of the deal would be revoked. 

Ignatov thinks this could be a very important point, because that would mean any future Russian invasion would completely nullify the deal. 

A Ukrainian soldier prepares to fire a BM-21 Grad multiple launch rocket system toward Russian troops at an undisclosed location in the Donetsk region, Ukraine, on Feb. 4, 2024. (Alina Smutko/Reuters)

What about peacekeepers?

A number of Kyiv’s allies, including Canada, have said they could commit to sending troops into Ukraine if there is a ceasefire, but this is a highly contentious point as Russia has repeatedly said that it would not allow NATO troops in Eastern Ukraine. 

“This is a total no-go. This would never be accepted by the Russians,” said Ambassador Thomas Greminger, a Swiss diplomat and director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. 

“But then I wonder what is possible to station them somewhere else close to Ukraine,” such as a neighbouring country like Poland or Romania. 

Greminger says he thinks there has been a lot of confusion around the idea of a so-called reassurance force, which is why he considers any talk of a peacekeeping mission separate from the discussions around security guarantees. 

He said it is possible there could be a ceasefire monitoring mission under a UN Security Council mandate, but he can’t envision troops from countries like France and the U.K. in Eastern Ukraine. 

Trump has already ruled out putting American boots on the ground in Ukraine. 

U.S. involvement in keeping the peace would more likely be about providing surveillance equipment and backup from NATO territory “should something major happen,” said Fabrice Pothier, the CEO of Rasmussen Global, a geopolitical consultancy. 

Pothier, who was previously the director of policy planning at NATO, says he believes that Ukraine’s allies should keep pushing for troops on the ground, in the air and on the Black Sea.

He says the Kremlin should not be able to dictate the terms of a reassurance force and where it can be stationed. 

“The question to ourselves is what is the acceptable level of risk here? Is failure an acceptable level of risk? 

What is Russia saying?

One reason Russia claimed it was launching its “special military operation” against Ukraine in 2022 was to keep the country out of NATO.

While Russia hasn’t said what kind of security guarantees it would agree to, its Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Wednesday that there can be “no talk of concessions or abandoning our approaches to the key objectives we face.”

Russia has repeatedly pushed back against any plan to freeze the conflict along the front line, and has rejected Washington’s push for a 30-day ceasefire. 

So is the war any closer to ending?

Optimists would say yes. There are still major issues to be addressed, and while it is hard to see how Ukraine and Russia could come to a workable agreement on territorial control, Greminger says he believes the discussion underway now represents the first serious set of negotiations since March 2022, shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. 

“If you do shuttle diplomacy” — that is, indirect talks through a mediator — “it is always much more complicated than if you sit at the same table,” he said.

“At least now serious negotiations are ongoing and not just public diplomacy, like the announcing [of] maximalist positions as we’ve been hearing now for many months.”

It’s not clear exactly what proposals the U.S. and Ukraine discussed on the weekend in Kyiv, but Washington is sending Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll back to Ukraine for more talks, and Witkoff is expected back in Moscow next week. 

Trump has said he will only meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Putin when a deal is about to be finalized.