Today's peace talks in Kyiv

In the second half of November 2025, Kyiv has become the locus of renewed diplomatic activity aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. The United States, under Donald Trump, has reportedly drafted and presented, via her envoy Steve Witkoff, to the Ukrainian leadership a comprehensive peace-framework, which Kyiv is currently studying. According to multiple media reports, the framework was developed between Washington and Moscow, then communicated to Kyiv, with the aim of providing an exit path from the war. 

The discussions in Kyiv signal a shift in pace: while formal direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow have not produced a breakthrough for months, Washington is now moving ahead with its own version of a settlement architecture, and is urging Kyiv to adopt it as a basis for negotiation. Kyiv, for its part, is alarmed by several of the concessions apparently embedded in the plan. 

The broader context is one of war fatigue, high personnel and materiel losses, and a front-line that remains dangerously active. For Ukraine, the imperative is to preserve her sovereignty and territorial integrity; for the United States, there is an increasing domestic and international pressure to find an end to the war while managing relationships with European allies and with Russia. For Russia, the objective remains maximal — territorial gain, strategic positioning in the Black Sea region and recognition of her dominance in Ukraine. The peace-plan offered by Washington appears to try to reconcile these divergent goals, but on terms which raise major concerns in Kyiv about durability, equity and justice.

The known points of the US-proposed framework

While the plan has not been formally published, and official US or Ukrainian comment remains muted, the media have reported several of its key elements. These should be treated as tentative and based on unnamed sources, but they are sufficiently consistent across outlets to merit serious attention. The following summarises what is publicly known.

Territorial and military concessions by Ukraine

One of the most contentious aspects of the plan is that Ukraine would be required to cede territory to Russia. According to the reports, the plan envisions Ukraine giving up parts of the Donbas region which she still controls, allowing Russia to retain control of large swathes of eastern Ukraine even beyond the territory she currently occupies. The plan further reportedly calls for Ukraine to reduce the size of her armed forces, relinquish or limit certain advanced weapon systems, and accept a form of demilitarisation or limitation of her military posture. 

Security guarantees and reconstruction-fund linkage

In return, Ukraine would receive security guarantees from the United States (and possibly from a coalition of Western states) that would aim to deter future Russian aggression. The guarantee is said to resemble the concept of a “no-fly zone”, or at least a protective shield, although Washington appears reluctant to commit ground troops. There is also the prospect of post-war reconstruction aid being tied to the agreeing of the framework.

A freeze or acceptance of current lines of control

Another element is that the plan would establish a freeze of the current front-line as the basis of peace. In practice, this means that Ukraine would be asked to accept the status quo ante (or near so) rather than continuing to attempt to recover all her occupied territory. Some reports suggest this is the crux of the concession demanded by Washington. 

A framework favourable to Russia

Multiple analysts quoted in the media argue that the framework tilts heavily in Russia’s favour. One official told Financial Times that the document is “very comfortable for Putin”.  The impression from Kyiv is that the U.S. is aligning closer with Moscow’s longstanding demands than with Ukraine’s red-lines. 

Diplomatic/mediation process

The plan reportedly was drafted with limited Ukrainian input (if any) and passed to Kyiv via the United States. One report states only US and Russian officials participated in the drafting. There is also a parallel military delegation from the US in Ukraine evaluating the front-line situation, then expected to travel to Moscow for discussion with Russian officials. 

Strategic and humanitarian dimensions

Sovereignty and political legitimacy

For Ukraine, the core difficulty lies in reconciling the demands of the plan with her basic principle of full territorial integrity and her constitutionally enshrined prohibition on ceding territory. Accepting this framework would mark a major shift in Ukraine’s posture from “restore all territory” to “accept some lost ground in exchange for peace”. The risk is not only that she loses land, but that her international standing, her internal morale, and her domestic political consensus might be undermined. Moreover, if she signs a settlement that many Ukrainians deem unacceptable, it could provoke internal instability.

Military implications

If Ukraine reduces her armed forces and relinquishes certain military systems, she could become vulnerable to renewed aggression. The reported security guarantees are crucial but remain vague, and it is unclear whether they would be as robust (or credible) as membership in NATO—or how they would be enforced. Without credible deterrence, any peace could be fragile. On the Russian side, she retains the ability to continue coercion or escalate, confident that Ukraine’s military fallback is constrained.

Humanitarian and reconstruction consequences

A peace deal would presumably bring a cessation of active hostilities and therefore relief to civilian populations across Ukraine. Damage to infrastructure, mass displacement, civilian casualties and the destruction of cities weigh heavily. The reconstruction of Ukraine will require vast international resources; linking reconstruction to a settlement framework may speed up rebuilding, but may also delay it or condition it on problematic political compromises. The moral question is whether peace at the cost of unacceptable concessions is truly “peace” for the people of Ukraine.

Diplomatic-geostrategic ramifications

The United States’ shift to this framework signals a change in US posture (again): moving from supporting Ukraine’s “restore all territory” aim to pushing for a pragmatic settlement. That may disappoint European allies who have maintained the maximal position on Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia sees in the plan a diplomatic victory. If Kyiv accepts it, Russia would consolidate major gains, reduce the risk of further NATO expansion or large-scale Western troops in Ukraine, and normalise her role as a great-power actor in postwar Europe. For Europe, especially the frontline states such as Poland and Romania, the implications are clear: if Ukraine’s defence is weakened or her losses legitimised, the wider deterrent effect may diminish.

Kyiv’s response and the road ahead

It is reported that officials in Kyiv are alarmed by the terms of the U.S. framework. One Kyiv source told Kyiv Independent that Washington appears to be shifting toward alignment with Moscow’s demands. The Ukrainian leadership has not publicly accepted the plan; rather, it is reviewing it and continuing to press for stronger security guarantees and no unacceptable territorial losses.

The road ahead remains complex. Key issues include: will Russia agree formally to the terms, or is this a US-Russia initiative with Ukraine as a subordinate actor? How will European allies react if Ukraine accepts what they consider too-great concessions? How credible will the security guarantees be? What happens if Ukraine rejects the plan and the US proceeds anyway? Military contingencies remain, the front remains active, and the humanitarian cost continues to rise.

The peace talks in Kyiv and the US-presented framework mark a substantial moment in the Ukraine war: the transition from purely military confrontation to major diplomatic manoeuvring. The plan offers a path to end the war but at the risk of major concessions by Ukraine - particularly in terms of territory and military capability. In return, Ukraine would gain security guarantees and reconstruction support, but those may be weaker and more conditional than many in Kyiv would prefer.

The stakes are high: for Ukraine, the choice is between continuing a gruelling war with uncertain prospects, and accepting a settlement that may save lives but at a cost of honour, sovereignty and future security. For the United States and Europe, the decision is whether to accept a deal that stabilises the situation but may cement Russian gains, or to keep pushing for a more robust outcome - with the attendant risk of prolonging the conflict.

For the humanitarian dimension, any path that ends the active fighting sooner is preferable, yet one wonders whether durable peace can be built on an uneven foundation where one side retains the upper hand. Ultimately, the success of any treaty will rest not just on the headlines of Kyiv but on the guarantee mechanisms, the reconstruction investments, and the enduring stop-gap of Russian aggression.