Geneva, Switzerland – A significant moment in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has emerged with Ukraine’s agreement in principle to a U.S.-backed peace deal. This accord, which encompasses 28 clauses and was initially presented in Geneva, enjoys the backing of former President Donald Trump. The plan seeks to outline a pathway for a ceasefire and a long-term political resolution. The future of this deal now hinges on Russia’s response, potentially altering the course of the two-year war in Eastern Europe.
As one U.S. official stated, “The Ukrainians have agreed to the peace deal. There are some minor details to be sorted out but they have agreed to a peace deal.” Hungary’s Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has described the negotiations as “a major chance,” urging European leaders to back the framework despite some criticism. This development follows months of discreet but intense diplomatic efforts by high-ranking U.S. figures and security advisors, with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll engaging in early contact with Russian officials to gauge their willingness for further discussions.
With Ukraine signaling readiness for peace, the focus now shifts to Moscow. The key question remains whether President Vladimir Putin will accept a deal that, while offering significant concessions, restricts Ukraine’s military capabilities and delays its NATO ambitions. If Russia responds positively, the peace arrangement could be finalized by 2026, provided all parties engage in compliance, ratification, and international oversight.
A Complex Blueprint for Peace
The proposed agreement, however, is not without its controversies. It reportedly includes acknowledgment of Russian control over parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. In return, Ukraine would receive international security assurances, a possible easing of sanctions against Russia, and reconstruction financing mechanisms. It would also involve Ukraine reducing its military strength and imposing a temporary freeze on NATO membership for up to ten years.
Initially resistant to these terms, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is now expected to travel to Washington, D.C., to finalize the agreement. While some European leaders, like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron, have raised concerns that this plan legitimizes territorial changes by force, Ukrainian negotiators are attempting to frame the discussion as necessary for maintaining domestic support.
Zelensky has been quoted saying, “Putin wants legal recognition for what he has stolen,” and firmly stated, “Borders cannot be changed by force.” Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Olga Stefanishyna remarked that the discussions are less about achieving justice and more focused on ceasing military hostilities, stating, “This plan is not about justice and the truth of this war and the aggression. It’s about ending the war.”
Inside the Negotiations
The negotiations in Geneva, which took place quietly in late November 2023, included high-profile figures: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on the American side, and key Ukrainian officials like Andriy Yermak and Rustem Umerov. Despite nearing completion, significant disagreements remained over various components of the deal.
One crucial aspect of the peace proposal was revising language that would have permanently barred Ukraine from NATO. Instead, a compromise was reached with Ukraine agreeing to a ten-year moratorium on NATO membership, a development that some European leaders have hailed as a “decisive success.” German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul received this change positively, noting, “Issues concerning Europe, including an apparent ban on Ukraine joining NATO, have been removed. That is a decisive success.”
The deal also outlines steps to lift economic sanctions on Russia, contingent upon specific milestones like troop withdrawals and prisoner exchanges, as well as addressing the return of abducted Ukrainian children. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged that Russia has not been formally updated on the planning process but noted the gravity of the talks, stating, “Moscow would respond once we have received an official draft.”
A War’s Heavy Cost
The urgency for these negotiations stems from both diplomatic fatigue and worsening conditions on the battlefield. Russian forces have ramped up their attacks in the Donetsk region and are gaining ground near the logistics hub of Pokrovsk. Ukraine’s military, already stretched thin and facing delays in foreign aid, has found itself pivoting toward a defensive stance. Recent legislative efforts in Washington for aid have stalled, further intensifying the pressure to pursue a diplomatic resolution.
Amid the fighting, Ukrainian soldiers expressed their concerns about potential concessions. “It’s painful,” shared one soldier, “But if it stops the bloodshed, maybe this is what we must do.” Analysts warn, however, that halting the conflict might just provide Russia a chance to regroup for future violence. Former MI6 Chief Alex Younger commented, “If Ukraine had agreed to [military cuts and NATO restrictions] straight away, the war would restart.”
Conflicting Reactions and Next Steps
As the geopolitical stakes rise, reactions to the proposed agreement vary greatly. Some leaders in the U.S. and Europe see it as a positive opportunity for realignment, while others criticize it as a form of appeasement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen outlined three critical guidelines: borders must not shift through force; military capability should not be limited to the point of vulnerability; and any security guarantee process must involve Europe at its core.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney emphasized, “Ukraine is a sovereign country—that’s a good start. But the outcome must ensure sovereignty remains intact when the war ends.” Despite the ongoing discussions, European nations have yet to present a unified position, with several countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, crafting their own proposals.
Meanwhile, Trump administration officials are seizing the moment, with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll taking preliminary steps to communicate with Russian military liaisons regarding logistics for upcoming negotiations.
June Deadline or 2026 Horizon?
Speculation within Washington suggests that a final agreement could be reached by mid-2024, though experts lean toward 2026 as a more realistic timeline. The proposed framework would undergo scrutiny from international stakeholders, including NATO and the United Nations. Successful implementation would depend on ongoing compliance and methods for trust verification, along with calibrated sanctions relief.
Steve Witkoff, an advisor to Trump who co-authored the plan, described it as “an imperfect peace but a necessary one.” Critics, however, caution that it may trade long-term freedom for short-term stability.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the success of this Trump-supported plan rests now with Moscow. Yet, Ukraine’s tentative acceptance is a pivotal moment. After nearly two years of the harrowing conflict, the exhaustion of resources, time, and political will looms large. If Russia reacts constructively, the once-elusive chance for peace may finally become a reality. Until then, diplomatic efforts remain intense behind closed doors, while Ukrainian forces continue to defend their territory in the east.
"*" indicates required fields
