Donald Trump's impending return to the White House has heightened expectations of a new push for peace in 2025, as the US leader looks to seek some kind of deal to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine. While the exact nature of Trump's peace plan is still unknown, it is expected to include significant territorial concessions for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s negotiating position is already coming into focus. While Ukrainian officials continue to rule out a formal cession of territory to Moscow, there appears to be a growing understanding in Kyiv that the country’s complete liberation is no longer a military option. Instead, Ukraine has begun to signal a willingness to compromise temporarily on territorial issues, while emphasizing the critical importance of security guarantees.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used his first meeting with Trump since the US presidential election to stress the need for credible security commitments in any negotiated settlement. During a three-way call with French President Emmanuel Macron in December 2024, the Ukrainian leader reportedly stressed to Trump that a ceasefire alone “would not be enough” to end the war with Russia.
Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials have reiterated this position repeatedly in recent weeks, expressing a willingness to seek a diplomatic solution, insisting that it must be accompanied by credible, long-term security guarantees that would prevent any repetition of the current Russian invasion. In essence, Ukraine’s position can be summed up as “no peace without security.”
It is not yet clear what security guarantees Ukraine can realistically count on. Ukrainian officials continue to insist on NATO membership, which Kyiv sees as the most reliable deterrent against future Russian aggression. But leading NATO members, including the United States and Germany, remain reluctant to extend invitations to Ukraine because of concerns about the possibility of a direct clash between the alliance and Russia.
Bilateral security pacts could potentially break the impasse, but any agreement would need to include firm commitments to defend Ukraine against renewed Russian invasion. Zelensky said in early 2025 that such security guarantees would only be effective if provided by the United States. There is no sign yet that the United States or other key allies are willing to take such a major step.
Preliminary discussions are also believed to be underway over the possible deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with a number of European countries potentially contributing troops. Such an approach could temporarily reduce the likelihood of a return to full-scale fighting, but sceptics argue that such a force would be difficult to maintain and would not provide a long-term solution to the Russian threat.
In the absence of a credible peacekeeping operation, some have suggested that Ukraine’s Western partners could secure a viable peace by promising to dramatically increase military support and provide the country with enough weapons to deter Moscow. However, given the regular delays and repeated disruptions in Western military aid during the current war, this option is unlikely to satisfy Kyiv or dissuade the Kremlin from its plans to conquer Ukraine entirely.
With all sides now increasingly recognizing the need for territorial concessions, resolving the long-term security conundrum looks set to become the single biggest obstacle to ending Europe’s biggest war since World War II. Indeed, unless Ukraine’s security concerns can be satisfactorily addressed, it is unlikely that any peace agreement will be reached at all.
Ukrainians are acutely aware that Russian President Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to his ultimate goal of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian national identity entirely. Putin’s insistence on a neutral and disarmed Ukraine is seen in Kyiv as a clear sign that he has no interest in a viable peace agreement and intends to resume the invasion as soon as he has the opportunity to rearm.
They also understand that any ceasefire without credible security guarantees would leave their country in a militarily, economically, and geopolitically precarious position. In such circumstances, Ukraine would be unable to attract the international investment needed to rebuild the country, while the millions of Ukrainians who fled Russia’s invasion in 2022 are unlikely to return. Weakened, demoralized, depopulated, and internationally isolated, Ukraine would be in no position to withstand a new Russian onslaught.
Unless Ukraine is offered a long-term security commitment, many Ukrainians may reluctantly conclude that it would be wiser to continue fighting now rather than accept terms that would amount to a national death sentence. If their Western partners respond by cutting military support, Ukraine’s prospects will be dim. It would be equally dangerous for Europe, which would face the prospect of Ukraine’s disintegration and Russia’s resurgence.
All of this can be avoided if Western leaders provide Ukraine with credible security guarantees that can deter Putin and prevent further Russian aggression. But that will require bold leadership and political courage that have been sorely lacking in Western capitals since the Russian invasion began nearly three years ago.
Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council's UkraineAlert service.
Source: Source
