Can the Latest Diplomatic Push End the War in Ukraine? What the New Drafts Reveal

Diplomatic activity around the war in Ukraine has intensified: meetings in Switzerland, talks in the United Arab Emirates and the prospect of a Ukrainian presidential visit to Washington. Despite a flurry of contacts and public statements suggesting progress, closed briefings and reactions from Kyiv and Moscow indicate that a final agreement remains far from certain.

What happened

The controversy began when a 28‑point peace draft surfaced and was widely criticized as tilted toward Moscow. The White House said the draft reflected weeks of work by senior U.S. envoys and included input from both Russian and Ukrainian representatives. After pushback from Ukraine and European partners, the document was reportedly pared back to 19 points; the revised text has not been released publicly.

Main sticking points

Moscow’s core demands remain largely unchanged: formal control or special status for the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, limits on Ukraine’s armed forces, and guarantees that Kyiv will not join NATO or host NATO troops. Kyiv rejects surrendering territory it does not currently occupy and insists on credible security guarantees and the possibility of eventual Euro‑Atlantic integration.

One of the most sensitive proposals under discussion would designate parts of eastern Ukraine’s so‑called "fortress belt" as a demilitarized zone. In practice this could freeze front lines and entrench Russian control over areas it now occupies — a concession politically fraught for Kyiv but one that diplomats see as a potential bargaining chip if carefully worded.

Security guarantees and possible workarounds

To bridge the NATO impasse, diplomats are exploring forms of "credible, non‑NATO" security guarantees for Ukraine. The original U.S. outline suggested specific scenarios that would trigger coordinated responses from guarantors; those guarantees are reportedly being discussed in an annex to the main text.

Admiral James Stavridis suggested an alternative: bilateral contingents from allied countries sent under national flags — a "tripwire" force that would bolster deterrence without placing troops under NATO command.

Such arrangements could ease Kyiv’s security concerns while stopping short of formal NATO membership, but they would likely draw strong objections from Moscow and raise complex legal and operational questions.

Political and battlefield dynamics

On the battlefield, the conflict has settled into a war of attrition that tends to favor Russia’s larger forces, and Moscow has made incremental gains. Analysts say that when one side believes it can improve its position by fighting on, it becomes harder to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Domestic politics also matter. Ukraine is dealing with a corruption scandal that has cost ministers their posts and dented public confidence, while President Volodymyr Zelensky remains broadly popular but faces pressure at home. For Russia, the calculation includes whether short‑term engagement with a U.S. administration perceived as friendly offers more advantage than holding purely maximalist positions.

Outlook

Diplomats report a mixture of cautious optimism and realism: delegations say they have reached "a common understanding" on some matters but stop short of claiming a deal. Moscow has stressed that any revised plan must reflect earlier summit discussions, signaling a desire to preserve favorable language. Observers remain skeptical that the parties share sufficient common ground for a final settlement anytime soon.

For now, more meetings are planned and Kiev hopes for a direct discussion between its president and key U.S. officials to hammer out unresolved issues. Whether those talks produce a durable agreement will depend on how negotiators reconcile territorial questions, the shape of security guarantees, and the political willingness of both capitals to compromise.