Author: Giorgi Bilanishvili
The establishment of global peace has been declared a priority in President Trump’s foreign policy agenda. In his public addresses, Trump frequently emphasizes that he swiftly managed to end eight wars worldwide. Following his election, the new U.S. administration has actively sought to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. On February 12 of last year, the first official telephone conversation took place between President Trump and President Putin, with Ukraine being one of the central topics. Shortly thereafter, direct contacts between the United States and Russia resumed, leading to negotiations focused specifically on Ukraine. The fact that neither Ukraine nor European representatives were directly involved in these talks raised concerns that developments might unfold in favor of Moscow’s interests from the beginning.
As a result of U.S. mediation, direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia resumed in May 2025, after being suspended since the spring of 2022. Although none of the previous negotiation formats had succeeded in ending the war, drafting a peace agreement should be considered as an important outcome of this process. The developments that have unfolded around this draft further underscore the difficulties experienced by Ukraine.
The initial draft of the peace agreement, known as the “28‑point plan,” largely reflected Russia’s interests, demanding significant concessions from Ukraine. Among these were the complete cession of Donetsk Oblast to Russia and U.S. recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto parts of Russia. With the assistance of European partners, Ukraine managed to reach a compromise with the U.S. administration, substituting the 28‑point plan with a 20‑point plan. This revised version no longer requires the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk. Instead, it stipulates the withdrawal of Russian forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, after which a free economic zone would be established in these territories. For Moscow, however, such demands remain strictly unacceptable, as it continues to insist on Ukraine’s unconditional capitulation as a precondition for ending the war.
Despite the difficult circumstances, U.S. efforts to achieve a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia have not diminished. On the contrary, recently they have intensified. Since the beginning of 2026, negotiations have resumed in a new trilateral format (USA–Russia–Ukraine), with three meetings already held in a short span of time. By initiating this new round of talks, the Trump administration aims to secure a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine by June 2026.
Trilateral Negotiations
The trilateral negotiations between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine commenced in Abu Dhabi on January 23–24. Following this meeting, the parties did not publicly announce any agreements, even of a technical nature. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt branded the talks, initiated under U.S. mediation, as “historic” and emphasized President Trump’s active involvement in the process. The administration’s strong interest in the negotiations was further underscored by the participation of Trump’s son‑in‑law, Jared Kushner, alongside the President’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Although Kushner holds no official position in the White House, he has wielded considerable influence during both of Trump’s presidencies.
The second round of negotiations was held again in Abu Dhabi on February 4–5. Its principal outcome was the announcement of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to exchange 314 prisoners of war. While the parties refrained from making official statements or evaluations after both the first and second rounds, the process itself was generally assessed positively. Western sources confirmed that the positions and approaches of the Russian and Ukrainian sides appeared more constructive compared to similar previous encounters. The appointment of Igor Kostyukov, director of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU), as head of the Russian delegation was also regarded positively, as unlike his predecessor Medinsky, Kostyukov focused more on practical rather than political issues.
However, the consideration of Medinsky’s replacement by Kostyukov as a genuine compromise of Moscow remains debatable. Despite his senior rank, Kostyukov is a military figure, whereas the achievement of a peace agreement ultimately requires political decisions. Thus, this move suggested that Russia’s stance on political issues remained uncompromising, with Moscow continuing to view the end of the war only in terms of full fulfilment of its conditions.
The third round of trilateral negotiations took place in Geneva on February 17–18, instead of Abu Dhabi. For this round, Moscow reinstated Medinsky as head of its delegation. According to Russian sources, the United States assisted the Russian delegation in overcoming sanctions‑related obstacles to their travel to Geneva. The negotiations themselves appeared more difficult but still substantive. This time, high‑ranking national security officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy arrived in Geneva. The British delegation was led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell, who was the senior figure among the delegations. These delegations were not involved in the trilateral talks but actively provided consultations to the Ukrainians.
According to Steve Witkoff, significant progress was achieved in Geneva and trilateral negotiations would continue in the near future. President Zelensky was more specific, noting that the talks were primarily divided into two groups – military and political, emphasizing that the parties were closer to agreement on military issues than on political ones. Also, CNN reported that the military discussions were focused on a ceasefire and the establishment of monitoring mechanisms for its implementation.
The stance of Russia
From the very beginning, Russia remained cautious about the potential outcomes of the new round of negotiations mediated by the United States. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted that the agenda contained highly complex issues requiring extensive work, and it would be a mistake to expect serious results from the initial contacts. He further emphasized that territorial issues, which are part of the so‑called Anchorage Formula, were of fundamental importance to Moscow.
Russian officials frequently refer to the “Anchorage Formula” without elaborating on details. By this, they imply that during the Trump-Putin meeting of August 15 of last year, the issue of Ukraine’s occupied territories was allegedly agreed upon in Moscow’s favor. Chief among these was the proposed full session of the non‑occupied part of Donetsk Oblast to Russia. A source close to the peace negotiations confirmed that Moscow views recognition of Donbas as part of Russia as an essential part of any peace agreement.
Since the start of the new negotiation round, Russia has shown little optimism. Its position remains rigid and uncompromising. This was vividly evident in Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s February 9 interview with TV BRICS, in which he claimed that Russia had agreed in Anchorage to a U.S. proposal for resolving the Ukraine issue, after which Russia and the United States were supposed to shift toward mutually beneficial cooperation. Yet, according to Lavrov, developments have taken the opposite direction, with new sanctions imposed against Russia, the detention of Russian tankers, and attempts to restrict India and other countries from purchasing Russian oil.
The Stance of Ukraine
Ukraine comprehends that its political and military support from the United States has diminished during the Trump administration in comparison to the time of Biden’s presidency. Nevertheless, Kyiv considers maintaining its partnership with Washington to be of vital importance and seeks to preserve it through rational compromises. This task, however, is becoming increasingly difficult. Apparently, the issue of a complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk remains central in U.S.-Ukraine discussions. Washington has linked the provision of security guarantees to Ukraine with this matter.
At present, Ukraine is not ready to accept such a decision, as confirmed by several recent statements from President Zelensky. As a potential compromise, the United States has proposed the creation of a free economic zone in Donbas. During the second round of trilateral negotiations in Abu Dhabi, Russia agreed for the first time to consider this proposal. This model envisions the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk, on the condition that Russian forces would not enter the area, though they would remain in the occupied part of Donetsk. Even in this scenario, many questions remain unresolved, including under whose authority the proposed “free economic zone” would fall.
Overall, Ukraine appears to be under significant pressure to make concessions within the framework of a peace agreement. This is linked to unconfirmed reports suggesting that Ukraine agreed to hold presidential elections and a referendum on the peace agreement by May 15, in order to avoid losing U.S. security guarantees.
Conclusion
The United States’ accelerated attempt to end the Russia-Ukraine war faces serious challenges. The timeline is compressed, as Washington seeks to finalize a peace agreement by June. In reality, both the military and political dimensions remain highly complex. Although Russian forces hold certain battlefield advantages, most assessments suggest that at the current pace, it would take at least another year to fully capture Donetsk Oblast.
Even if Kyiv were to agree to cede Donbas entirely to Russia, it would require extremely strong security guarantees from both the United States and European countries. Within such guarantees, European states are prepared to deploy their own military contingents in Ukraine, which is categorically unacceptable to Moscow.
In summary, Ukraine is currently ready to make a significant compromise, but not for unconditional capitulation. Russia, however, continues to demand precisely such capitulation and seeks to achieve it through U.S. mediation. At present, the positions of the parties remain far apart, and reconciling them within the compressed timeframe is objectively difficult. Moreover, ending the war under Russia’s conditions would pose a serious challenge not only to Ukraine but to Europe’s overall security. Although European countries are not directly involved in the peace negotiations, their role remains significant, as both the process and its outcome will influence the formation of a new security architecture in Europe.
This article was translated from the original language with the assistance of AI tools and revised by the author.