Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have inched closer to putting a concrete peace framework on paper, but the war’s end still hinges on decisions that only Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy and, increasingly, Washington under President Donald Trump can make. Talks in Florida this week produced what Kyiv calls a “90 percent” complete draft deal, even as Moscow publicly rejects key changes and conditions any Christmas ceasefire on first clinching a broader agreement.
Florida Talks: A Draft Deal, But No Breakthrough
For the first time since the early months of the full‑scale invasion in 2022, Russian and Ukrainian delegations have been meeting indirectly on U.S. soil, holding parallel sessions in Florida with Trump’s envoys and European representatives. Ukraine’s delegation, led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, described the three days of meetings as “productive and constructive,” saying a draft peace proposal is now “almost 90 percent ready.”
Umerov wrote on social media that Kyiv had “done all it could” to finalize text reflecting its core priorities, security guarantees, the return of occupied territory, and accountability for Russian war crimes, while acknowledging that sensitive points remain unresolved. Those include the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, the sequencing of troop withdrawals and sanctions relief, and the nature of any long‑term neutrality or NATO‑related security commitments for Ukraine.
On the Russian side, chief negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has wrapped up his Florida meetings and is returning to Moscow to brief Putin, with Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov warning reporters not to expect “any breakthrough” at this stage. Ushakov said Dmitriev would “bring back some signals” received from Americans and Europeans, after which Russia will “formulate the position with which we will proceed” in further contacts.
Putin: Talks ‘Useful’ but Russia Keeps a Hard Line
Publicly, Putin continues to strike a familiar balance between guarded openness and hard‑line messaging. In a recent interview with India Today TV, he called his five‑hour session with U.S. envoys on ending the war “necessary” and “useful,” but also “difficult work” with proposals he described as unacceptable to the Kremlin.
His broader line has not shifted: Russia, he insists, is ready to take Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region “by force” if necessary, and any peace must “secure our interests and ensure future peace in Europe” on Moscow’s terms. Those terms, set out in various rounds of talks this year, have included recognition of Russian control over annexed territories and constraints on Ukraine’s military alignment that Kyiv has so far rejected as tantamount to capitulation.
Ukraine’s foreign minister, speaking at an OSCE meeting in early December, underlined that Kyiv wants “real peace, not appeasement,” and will not accept deals that lock in territorial losses or leave it vulnerable to future attacks.
Trump’s Peace Plan and Western Pressure on Moscow
Hovering over the Florida talks is Trump’s own peace plan, a U.S.‑drafted roadmap that began as a 28‑point proposal and has now been pared back to 20 points after consultations between Washington and Kyiv. Zelenskyy has confirmed that Ukraine and the U.S. have agreed on this revised framework, which European leaders endorsed in principle in a joint statement on December 15.
In that statement, leaders from Germany, France, Italy, the UK, the Nordics, and the EU institutions said, “it is now incumbent upon Russia to show willingness to work towards a lasting peace by agreeing to President Trump’s peace plan and to demonstrate their commitment to end the fighting by agreeing to a ceasefire.” They pledged to “increase pressure on Russia”, via sanctions, military support for Ukraine and diplomatic isolation, until Moscow negotiates “in earnest.”
So far, however, the Kremlin is resisting adjustments Kyiv and its European partners have sought, with Russian officials rejecting “undisclosed changes” to earlier drafts and framing some new ideas , particularly on security guarantees and accountability mechanisms as red lines.
Christmas Ceasefire: Conditional and Unlikely
One of the most immediate questions is whether there will be a pause in fighting over Christmas and New Year. Zelenskyy has voiced support for a limited ceasefire, especially to protect Ukraine’s battered energy infrastructure during the coldest weeks of winter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has poured cold water on the idea, telling reporters that a Christmas truce “depends on whether we, as President Trump puts it, will finalize a deal or not.” He said Moscow is not interested in “a truce that merely allows Ukraine to regroup and continue the conflict,” insisting that Russia wants to “fulfil our objectives, safeguard our interests, and ensure future peace in Europe.”
Given that Putin has yet to even receive Dmitriev’s Florida report or sign off on the next negotiating steps, and with Russian forces still conducting offensive operations and alleged civilian abductions in regions such as Sumy, analysts see a formal ceasefire before year‑end as unlikely.
Substance vs Optics: Are the Sides Moving Any Closer?
Beneath the choreography of meetings, statements and joint communiqués, the fundamental gap remains wide.
- Territory and sovereignty: Kyiv’s position, echoed in the European joint statement, is that any “just and lasting peace” must be based on respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders. Russia, by contrast, has moved to formally absorb four Ukrainian regions and Crimea, and demands recognition of those annexations.
- Security guarantees: Ukraine seeks binding, NATO‑style security guarantees from Western powers; Moscow says it has not yet studied the specifics of these proposals and continues to frame NATO expansion as one of the conflict’s root causes.
- War crimes and justice: Kyiv and its allies emphasize accountability and reparations, while Russia rejects the notion of international tribunals and insists that any settlement must shield its leadership and military from prosecution.
The only tangible progress reported from 2025’s earlier in‑person talks, held in Turkey in June was an agreement to expand prisoner‑of‑war exchanges focused on the youngest and most severely wounded, and to repatriate the remains of some 12,000 soldiers. No durable ceasefire or political settlement emerged from that session, and the same dynamic persists now: practical humanitarian arrangements are possible, but core political trade‑offs are still out of reach.
How the War on the Ground Shapes the Talks
The backdrop to diplomacy is continued fighting. RFE/RL notes that while negotiators were meeting in Florida, Ukrainian officials accused Russian forces of abducting more than 50 civilians from a village in Sumy region and taking them across the border into Russia allegations Moscow has not addressed publicly.
On the battlefield, Russia has recently claimed its “biggest victory in over a year,” seizing territory in eastern Ukraine and tightening pressure on key front sectors, developments the Kremlin may see as strengthening its hand. Ukraine, for its part, remains dependent on Western military aid and fresh EU financing, even as it pushes to show resilience and leverage from its own counter‑operations and drone strikes.
That military reality filters back into the negotiating room: each side is calculating whether today’s compromise might look like tomorrow’s mistake if battlefield dynamics change.
What to Watch Next
Several inflection points loom in the coming weeks:
- Putin’s response to Dmitriev’s report: Once the chief negotiator briefs the Kremlin on the Florida talks and the near‑complete draft, Russia will “formulate the position with which we will proceed” in future contacts, according to Ushakov. Any shift in public rhetoric from Putin, softening or hardening, will be closely parsed for clues.
- Further Florida sessions or a higher‑level summit: Ukrainian officials say they have taken the draft peace text as far as they can; the next step would be a decision by political leaders, potentially in a second‑stage meeting involving Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy, something Turkey and other mediators have long advocated.
- European and U.S. unity: The joint European statement underlines strong alignment behind Trump’s plan for now, but prolonged stalemate or perceived concessions could test unity within NATO and the EU.
- Domestic politics in Moscow and Kyiv: Both leaders face internal constraints Putin from hard‑liners who see compromise as weakness, Zelenskyy from a public that has endured immense sacrifice and remains wary of any deal that looks like territorial surrender.
For now, the latest round of diplomacy has produced a nearly finished document but not a finished peace. The distance between talking about “real peace” and achieving it in Ukraine still runs, in large part, through the Kremlin, and through a series of choices that neither side has yet been willing to make.