Recent peace plan discussions have created the impression that the war in Ukraine could soon end. However, irreconcilable differences between Ukraine and Russia, combined with the Kremlin’s continued pursuit of maximalist demands, indicate that negotiations are likely to drag on into 2026 rather than deliver a durable peace.
Progress without closure
On Dec. 28, Ukrainian President Zelensky met with US President Trump, and both stated that they were nearly in agreement on the Ukraine peace plan. There appears to be progress in aligning positions at a conceptual level. Both Ukrainian and US leadership have agreed on the necessity of long-term US security guarantees, and discussions have also advanced on the order in which different components of the peace plan could be implemented, as well as on a prosperity plan to support Ukrainian reconstruction measures following the end of the war.
Nevertheless, the most complex issues remain unresolved. Without shifts in positions from both sides, negotiations are likely to delay any prospect of realizing a peace plan in the months ahead, or potentially well into the following year.
Territory is the main deadlock
The Kremlin has continued to pursue its maximalist demands, expressed on numerous occasions, that the first precondition to any ceasefire discussions should be a complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas. On Dec. 29, the Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reiterated that Russia demands the full withdrawal of the Ukrainian forces from Donbas beyond its administrative borders, including territory Russia has not been able to occupy in nearly four years of war. It remains the Kremlin’s precondition for a ceasefire.
Currently, the Kremlin controls almost two-thirds of the Donetsk region, with Ukraine having a strong presence and fortifications erected since 2014. Giving up the remaining territories in Donbas would expose Ukraine to renewed attacks from multiple directions if Russia relaunches its aggression after a ceasefire.
In turn, Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly stated that giving up territories is non-negotiable and has consistently argued that any territorial decisions must be legitimized through constitutional means, such as a referendum. Zelensky rejected any peace settlement imposed by force and insists territorial decisions must respect Ukrainian sovereignty and law. These are incompatible positions rather than technical disagreements, leaving little room for compromise.
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant: risks of shared control
The control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant remains another key stumbling block in the peace discussions. Proposals for joint management are unworkable as they would legitimize the seizure of Europe’s largest nuclear facility and create a fragmented chain of authority. Nuclear plants require a single sovereign regulator with full access, yet under occupation, Russia has embedded its military structures and Rosatom personnel inside the plant. Any shared-control formula would blur accountability, reward nuclear coercion, and undermine international nuclear safety norms.
The risks increase further with Russian proposals to restart reactor operations. All six units are in cold shutdown, preserving a longer response window in the event of an emergency. Restarting even one reactor would reduce that window to mere hours, an unacceptable risk in a war zone with shelling and an unstable power supply.
The only realistic option is to keep all reactors in cold shutdown and restore complete Ukrainian control under international oversight. If Ukraine cannot regain authority, Europe will face long-term exposure to a captured nuclear facility used by the Kremlin as both a military shield and a political lever, creating a lasting strategic vulnerability in Europe.
Russia’s engagement increasingly resembles a familiar Russian pattern of using diplomacy to manage Western pressure and buy time for further escalatory steps rather than to move towards a genuine peace in Ukraine.
Security guarantees: promises versus enforcement
In terms of security guarantees, there is a visible gap between recent political statements and the practical implementation. President Donald Trump offered guarantees of 15 years with a possible extension. Still, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted on a longer duration (30 to 50 years) and concrete enforcement mechanisms, potentially including a foreign troop presence.
In December, several European leaders expressed readiness to lead a “multinational force” in Ukraine as part of a US peace proposal. The leaders of the UK, France, Germany, and eight other European countries said troops from a “coalition of the willing” with US support could be stationed in Ukraine to ensure the implementation of security measures. Russian representatives, such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, have already rejected the idea of stationing any foreign troops in Ukraine and stressed that it would be treated as legitimate military targets.
The Kremlin is not interested in peace
The Kremlin is not interested in making any concessions related to the peace plan. While it has signaled openness to dialogue, it has not demonstrated any readiness to compromise on the most fundamental matters of the peace plan. Instead, the Kremlin continues to pursue maximalist objectives, openly stating that it intends to achieve them by military or diplomatic means.
Unsurprisingly, on Dec. 29, Moscow accused Ukraine of attempting to attack Putin’s residence in Valdai, Novgorod Oblast. This recent move reinforces the Kremlin’s unwillingness to compromise and seek a genuine settlement. It has already warned about retaliatory measures and that its negotiating position would be reviewed, considering this unsubstantiated accusation. The Kremlin continues to pursue a policy of shifting blame and creating preconditions for escalation rather than seeking compromises.
Russia’s engagement increasingly resembles a familiar Russian pattern of using diplomacy to manage Western pressure and buy time for further escalatory steps rather than to move towards a genuine peace in Ukraine.
On Dec. 27, Putin accused Ukraine of starting the war and of being unwilling to resolve the conflict peacefully, and declared Russia’s readiness to resolve all assigned tasks by military means. This behavior indicates that he and his close circle are not willing to take steps towards ending the war in Ukraine, and they are merely using negotiations to manage international pressure while continuing their military and political objectives.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.