With the round of intensives between American, Ukrainian and European officials in Berlin to end it now complete, after two days and after separate consultations at the European leadership level, CNN tries to take stock of where we are and whether the restraint that prevails, despite the fact that several key obstacles have not been removed, is justified.
As CNN points out, at the core of the talks was the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine, with the aim of preventing the possibility of a new Russian attack after the end of hostilities. Despite the positive messages sent publicly, this issue remains one of the most difficult points of friction with Moscow. Accordingly, a thorn in the negotiations continues to be the future of eastern Ukraine and especially Donbas, as Russia demands concessions from Kiev as a condition for a comprehensive agreement.
How did we get here?
On Monday night, several leaders spoke of “substantial progress”. The German government spoke of a small but real possibility of reaching an agreement soon, while the idea of a temporary ceasefire during the Christmas period was also on the table. At the same time, US President Donald Trump said the sides are “closer than ever” to a deal, although whether that assessment reflects reality remains an open question.
Direct contacts in Berlin included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and head of the Ukrainian negotiating team Rustem Umerov, who met with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff as well as Jared Kushner. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was also present at the discussions. The latest version of the American peace plan was in focus.
Zelensky stressed that, although the plan is not “perfect”, it is a realistic and workable basis. As he said, the United States seeks a quick solution, while the Ukrainian side emphasizes the substance and duration of the agreement. “If speed and quality can be combined, then we are absolutely in agreement,” he said.
The next day, the Ukrainian president said that the talks with the US focused on detailed documents that could not only end the war, but also ensure the security of his country. Speaking to the Dutch parliament in The Hague, he stressed that no detail should be taken as a reward for Russian aggression.
At the same time, leaders of the European Union and countries such as Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom met in a separate format. After the talks, they pledged to work closely with the US to provide strong security guarantees and support Ukraine’s economic recovery.
The security guarantees being discussed are described by US officials as similar to Article 5 of NATO, but do not foresee the deployment of US troops on Ukrainian soil. Zelensky has made it clear that Ukraine cannot withdraw from the battlefield without full clarity on the content and reliability of these guarantees.
What is on the table and what Moscow is saying
According to the information that has been released, there are five different texts on the table that make up the framework of the proposed peace agreement. These include legally binding security guarantees, which would have to be approved by the US Congress, as well as plans to fund Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.
For its part, Moscow appears cautious. The Kremlin said it has not yet heard about the latest proposals for NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov made it clear that Russia does not want a simple truce to give Kiev time to regroup, but a definitive end to the war that safeguards Russian interests and “future peace in Europe.”
The joint European declaration includes a number of commitments, such as the formation of a European-led multinational force with the participation of allies of the so-called “Alliance of the Willing” and support from the US. This force will have a role in the security of Ukrainian airspace and maritime zones, including through operations within the country. It also provides for a US-led and international-participation ceasefire monitoring mechanism, as well as extensive support to maintain Ukrainian armed forces at around 800,000 peacetime troops. An important part also concerns future investments, with an emphasis on the reconstruction and sequestration of Russian state assets located in the EU.
Whether Russia will accept this framework remains uncertain. The Russian government has made it clear that it rejects any scenario involving the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine and has demanded that Kiev make a constitutional commitment not to join the Alliance. In addition, he has raised the issue of limiting the size of the Ukrainian army.
US officials estimate that about 90% of the issues have already been resolved, with territorial arrangements being the main point of contention. In this context, ideas such as the creation of a free economic zone in parts of Donbas have been considered. The proposal envisages a demilitarized zone, from which Ukrainian forces will withdraw without being replaced by Russian ones. However, it remains unclear whether Vladimir Putin would agree to abandon his maximalist goals.
How is Kiev progressing and where is Trump taking it?
The Ukrainian side has expressed serious questions about who will command such a zone and how to ensure reciprocity in the withdrawal of troops. Zelensky made it clear that a “free economic zone” does not equate to Russian control and reiterated that Ukraine is not going to recognize the occupied part of Donbass as Russian, neither in law nor in practice.
In the following period, the Ukrainian president continues his international contacts, with a stop in the Netherlands and the subject, among other things, of discussing reparations from Russia for the destruction of the war. As he stated, the negotiations are not only about a ceasefire, but also about establishing an accountability framework so that Russia is obliged to operate in the future based on international law.
Donald Trump, who spoke by phone with European leaders and Zelensky over dinner in Berlin, appeared cautiously optimistic. He admitted that the talks are difficult and that the positions of the parties involved are changing, but he insisted that the efforts are at the most advanced point to date. In his statements he argued that “we have to bring them all on the same line”, summarizing the difficulty but also the ambition of the process.
