Are Ukraine and Russia really closer to peace, as Trump claims?

The president of the United States, said this morning that he believes we are “closer than ever” to achieving a peace agreement on Ukraine. His words, flattering, but which must be taken with caution given that this has been his feeling since last February, come after US representatives met in Berlin over the weekend with the Ukrainian president, and with European authorities to review the plan proposed by Washington to end the conflict.

Yesterday, again, there were meetings in the German capital, from which came the offer of an outline of security guarantees for kyiv: Washington offered kyiv and Europe added a legally binding commitment to help the country in case Russia launches a new attack, including a “multinational Ukraine force” led by Europe and supported by Washington.

“Right now, Russia wants it to end [la guerra]but the problem is that sometimes they want it and sometimes they don’t, and the same goes for Ukraine. So we have to get them to agree. But I think the talks are progressing very well,” Trump summarized. For once, he was nice to European partners: “We have tremendous support from European leaders. “They also want it to end.”

The agency reports that more talks are expected this weekend on US soil, possibly in Miami, according to several Trump administration officials.

But are we really that close? John E. Herbst, director of the Eurasia Center of the Atlantic Council – a Washingtonian think tank – is not so clear. released in the last few hours, sums it up in one sentence: while the US, Ukraine and Europe talk about peace, Russia still only thinks about surrender.” In his opinion, the probability of a ceasefire for Christmas is “low”, although he does not fail to describe as “hopeful” this latest effort by the Trump Administration to achieve a negotiated end to the Russian aggression, which is on its way to four years and which the Republican himself promised to resolve “in 24 hours” if he returned to the White House. It was not so easy nor were the others so fools

While the exact details of the current White House plan are not public, “reports suggest that the key points include a renewed US proposal for Ukraine to cede the strategic regions of western Donbas that Russia has failed to conquer and create a demilitarized zone there,” he reveals. kyiv rejected this initiative when it was initially presented, in mid-November, and it was widely criticized in the US, even by Republicans in Congress, for considering it dangerously favorable to the Kremlin. But Zelensky, he understands, has come to terms with the days that he will have to give up something, which is why he spoke for the first time about the measure and even about his decision-making.

“kyiv still considers this proposal – an attempt to comply with Moscow’s demand that Ukraine give up everything – extremely risky. If Russian troops entered this highly fortified demilitarized zone, it would be much easier for them to advance west and conquer much more Ukrainian territory,” says Herbst, who in addition to being an analyst was the US ambassador to Ukraine.

To persuade the Ukrainians to accept this, Washington is willing to offer Ukraine, it was announced yesterday “a guarantee based on the , that would be approved by Congress and legally binding.” The exact details of this guarantee are not public at this time. However, talks about the guarantees have been ongoing since Zelensky and seven other European leaders met with Trump in August, following his meeting with the Russian president. Now, the US tells AP that the offer of security guarantees will not be on the table “eternally”, a way to hurry up the process.

For months, Trump’s team has been reluctant to offer Ukraine concrete guarantees, preferring to first reach an agreement on the terms of a ceasefire and only then address the issue of guarantees, a stance that kyiv found unsatisfactory. This is understandable given that Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal under the , in exchange for “security guarantees” from Russia, the US, the UK, France and China that they would not allow any violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. “Guarantees that turned out to be ineffective,” recalls the expert.

“If Washington is now willing to offer Ukraine solid guarantees, either alone or, better yet, with at least some of its European allies, that could be enough for Zelensky to consider withdrawing from western Donbas,” he says. The public endorsement of the handover of western Donbas released last week “would likely meet its constitutional requirement not to make, without public approval, any changes to Ukraine’s borders.”

Axiosin its report signed by – a journalist with fantastic sources in the White House – quotes an unnamed senior US official who stated: “We want to give the Ukrainians a security guarantee that is not a blank check on the one hand, but is strong enough on the other. We are willing to put it to a vote in Congress.” This is undoubtedly a gesture towards Zelensky, but it does not clarify whether the Administration is referring to a (legally binding) treaty – Zelensky’s position – or something less.

Guarantees about guarantees

There is also little public information about the critical elements of those guarantees. Above all, its application and operation. “Zelensky is concerned that Russia could secretly deploy troops in the demilitarized zone,” the author notes. Last Friday, Putin’s senior advisor, , already stated that while “it is entirely possible that there will be no troops [en el Donbás]neither Russian nor Ukrainian” in a post-war scenario, “there will be a Russian national guard” and “police.

The Russian national guard is, today, a paramilitary force, and it would not be difficult to conceal a concentration of troops in the area as national guards. In 2014, Russian troops without any identification already unilaterally took over the . Would the security guarantees under discussion respond to a significant concentration of the Russian national guard in this area? More generally, what Russian violation of the demilitarized zone or offensive action beyond it would compel a forceful US response?

Trump’s public optimism has not yet responded to that. What’s more: Herbst says that this proposal represents an unnecessary risk for the United States itself. To persuade Ukraine to abandon its strong defensive positions, he says, “assurances must offer forceful US action if Russia breaks the ceasefire and deploys troops to this area.” “This would immediately put any US force, including air force, in unnecessary danger, since Russian troops would be operating from an advantageous position for both defensive and offensive operations. The US would have to be prepared for this contingency,” he warns.

The fight with the Kremlin

Trump’s envoys claim to have made significant progress in the talks, but there are still no clear signs that the Kremlin is willing to accept conditions that would lead to a sustainable peace. In fact, Ushakov declared on Friday that while Moscow had not seen the latest draft following the US-Ukraine talks, “when we see it, we may not like many things, that’s my feeling.” Although there are conquests on paper, they are not all that Trump, in the first phone call with Putin a month after arriving at the Oval Office, laid out for him.

As the months have passed, the maximalist positions of the Russian Federation have hardened and Trump, for his part, has gradually realized this and that Putin was buying time with negotiations, nothing more. He has not given up even a 30-day truce, to which Zelensky did agree. And he has been getting angry, of course, for not being able to appear like the megapacificador what it pretends to be.

The tycoon’s stated goal remains lasting peace. He says it and believes in it, because it suits him: he doesn’t want headaches, but rather focuses on the businesses that suit him. The drawback is that for it to be truly lasting it has to be fair and with guarantees, given Putin’s expansionist desires, which do not give confidence for the future.

“Despite nearly a month of talks since the launch of this latest initiative, there is no indication that Putin has given up on his goal of achieving effective political control of Ukraine, which would require Russia to seize much more Ukrainian territory,” the Atlantic Council’s assessment says. Even Trump seemed to recognize this when he criticized Zelensky, on December 7, for not responding favorably to the latest US proposal. Although he believed Russia would accept such a proposal, Trump declared: “Russia… I guess, if you think about it, I’d rather have the whole country.” It is obvious and, since they still think they are winning on the battlefield, their plan is to hold on, despite the high cost in lives that this “special military operation” is costing them, which has not yet been officially declared a war.

Andrei Kelin, Russia’s ambassador in London, gave an interview in , on December 10, in which he stated that what was on the table was not so much a “deal” but a Ukrainian “surrender.” “While US envoys pressure Ukraine to accept even previously rejected Russian conditions, and while the US and its European allies argue over the terms of plans to end the war, Moscow watches, with no incentive to make concessions to achieve lasting peace,” concludes the former diplomat.

US officials told media outlets such as CNN this morning that there is consensus on around 90% of the peace plan drawn up by the US and that Russia has indicated that it is open to Ukraine joining the EU. However, the Russian president has called Ukraine’s bid to join NATO a major security threat to Moscow and a reason to launch a full-scale invasion in February 2022. The Kremlin has demanded that Ukraine forever renounce its bid as a member of the alliance as part of any potential peace deal.

The agreement does not seem immediate.