Monday, December 29, 2025, may come to be seen as a turning point in the war in Ukraine not because the fighting has stopped, but because the negotiations have entered what all sides are now calling the “final stage.”
Following a high-profile meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Kyiv has publicly outlined the core of a proposed peace framework backed by Washington. Moscow, for its part, has acknowledged for the first time that talks are nearing completion, even as it issues stark warnings about what happens if they fail.
The headline figure “95% done” sounds reassuring. In practice, however, the remaining 5% includes the most sensitive and potentially destabilizing issues of the entire war.
A 15-Year U.S. Security Guarantee
At the center of the proposal is a U.S.-backed security guarantee for Ukraine lasting 15 years, with the option to extend. Zelenskyy has described these guarantees as “strong,” though not permanent, and that distinction is crucial.
Unlike NATO membership, which would trigger automatic collective defense, the guarantee is designed as a binding political and legal commitment by the United States and its partners to support Ukraine’s security if it is attacked again. The agreement is intended to be ratified by the U.S. Congress and European parliaments, making it far more difficult for future leaders to reverse unilaterally.
Zelenskyy has pushed for a much longer timeframe 30, 40, or even 50 years arguing that the war itself has already stretched across more than a decade since 2014. Trump has publicly said he will “think about” an extension, but for now, the 15-year term remains the working assumption.
The length of the guarantee is not a technical detail. It goes to the heart of whether this deal creates lasting stability or merely pauses the conflict.
The 20-Point Peace Plan: What Is Agreed and What Is Not
According to Zelenskyy, a revised 20-point peace plan is now roughly 90% agreed. The division between settled and unsettled issues is telling.
What appears settled:
- The framework for U.S. and European security guarantees
- Long-term military assistance and reconstruction support
- International oversight mechanisms tied to the guarantees
What remains unresolved:
- Territorial control, particularly in the Donbas
- The sequencing of troop withdrawals and ceasefires
- The political process for ratifying the deal inside Ukraine
One of Kyiv’s more unconventional ideas is to transform the occupied parts of the Donbas into a demilitarized “free economic zone,” rather than formally ceding sovereignty. The proposal is designed to avoid legitimizing territorial loss while offering Russia an off-ramp that does not involve full Ukrainian military control.
Whether Moscow will accept such ambiguity remains unclear.
The Referendum Dilemma
Zelenskyy has committed to putting any final agreement to a national referendum, a move intended to anchor the peace in democratic legitimacy. However, organizing such a vote would require at least a 60-day ceasefire.
Russia has so far rejected this condition. The Kremlin argues that a pause in fighting would simply give Ukraine time to re-arm and reposition its forces. This creates a paradox: Ukraine wants a ceasefire to legitimize peace, while Russia views a ceasefire as a strategic risk.
Without resolution, this issue alone could stall the entire process.
The Biggest Breaking Point: International Troops
The most explosive unresolved issue is the question of an international military presence on Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine insists that foreign troops whether European forces or a broader “coalition of the willing” are the only credible guarantee that Russia will not attack again. From Kyiv’s perspective, paper guarantees without physical deterrence repeat the mistakes of the past.
Russia has drawn a hard red line. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that any such forces would be considered “legitimate military targets,” effectively threatening escalation if troops deploy.
This is the narrowest bottleneck in the negotiations: too much international presence risks provoking Moscow; too little leaves Ukraine unconvinced the peace will hold.
The Trump–Putin–Zelensky Triangle
Diplomacy over the past week has revolved around an unusually direct triangle of leaders.
The Kremlin has publicly agreed with Trump’s assessment that the deal is “95% done” and, for the first time, described talks as being in their “final stage.” This marks a sharp rhetorical shift from earlier in the month, when Russian officials warned against expecting “miracles.”
At the same time, Moscow has issued an ultimatum: Ukraine must withdraw from remaining parts of Donetsk and Luhansk before any final signature. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned that failure to reach a deal soon could result in Ukraine “losing yet more territory.”
Trump and Putin have already held a one-hour call described as “friendly and businesslike,” with a follow-up expected imminently. Two formal working groups on military security and economic reconstruction are set to begin in January 2026.
Strategic Risks Hidden in the Final 5%
Several risks are embedded in the unresolved details:
- The 15-year term: It provides a generation of stability but raises the question of what happens when it expires. Past agreements with sunset clauses show how unresolved tensions can resurface.
- Congressional ratification: While this strengthens the deal, it also raises the political cost of failure if guarantees are tested.
- Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: Trump has hinted at joint efforts to reopen the facility. A successful arrangement here would be a powerful confidence-building measure, but control and security remain unclear.
Each issue is manageable on its own. Together, they create a fragile equilibrium.
What to Watch in January 2026
Several milestones will determine whether negotiations conclude or unravel:
- Early January: A Paris summit where European leaders are expected to finalize financial and troop commitments
- Mid-January: Working groups begin drafting technical ceasefire and security provisions
- Late January: A possible three-way summit involving Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy has been floated
Progress on any one of these fronts could unlock the rest. Failure on one could stall everything.
Why the Endgame Is the Hardest Part
Peace negotiations often falter not at the start, but at the moment when compromise becomes unavoidable. The Ukraine talks are no exception.
The proposed 15-year U.S. security guarantee represents a serious attempt to close the war without freezing it indefinitely. Yet the remaining disputes over time, territory, and troops carry disproportionate weight.
For now, the war’s endgame is closer than it has been in years. Whether it concludes in a durable peace or another unstable pause will depend on how the final 5% is resolved.
0 Comments