When U.S. President Donald Trump posted that he and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, were close to a peace deal, perhaps very close, the comment reverberated over the diplomatic community. Even the prudent optimism has a worldwide effect following nearly three years of war, numerous casualties, and the geopolitical upheaval on a scale that is likely to be recalled. However, here Trump himself speaks out, acknowledging that there are still thorny issues, particularly over territory, and this is the only point that underscores an ancient maxim: proximity to peace does not ensure its arrival.
The Trump-Zelensky meeting at Mar-a-Lago was full of symbolism. It was a sign of Trump choosing to engage in personalised, leader-based diplomacy and his view that unresolved conflicts can be opened to face-to-face negotiations rather than multilateral procedures. Besides Zelensky, Trump expressed hope that a win-win deal that is not only good for Ukraine but for everyone is nearly locked in. Nevertheless, within the context of optimism, some questions remained open that would lead to the heart of Ukrainian sovereignty and the European security system.
The two areas of concern dominated the discussion: security guarantees for Ukraine and the future of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. The leaders were positive about security. They had reached an agreement, and, as usual, Trump claimed that negotiations were 95 percent complete. Above all, Trump has indicated that European countries would be expected to contribute a significant share of the load, and that the United States would be a contributor rather than the key contributor.
This type of framing aligns with Trump’s pre-existing view that European allies must assume greater ownership of their local security. It also suggests that the transatlantic burden-sharing could be renegotiated as part of a peace deal. The additional news from French President Emmanuel Macron, who said there is progress and that the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” would meet in Paris in January, did nothing but reinforce the impression that Europe is preparing to turn rhetoric into reality. It can become one of the turning points in Ukraine’s long-term stability if there are viable, multinational security guarantees.
But as good as the guarantees of safety can be, the most sensitive political component of the war territory cannot be resolved independently. The fault in the region is called the Donbas hot spot. Such actions of the Russian invasion and occupation of the eastern Ukrainian territories have hitherto been an epitome of warfare, as well as a border settlement with a huge moral and political impact. Trump conceded that one of the thorny issues was the unresolved territorial dispute and that leaders had not given any information on what they could concede.
In the example of Zelensky, it is an existential dilemma. The concession of the lands will undermine Ukraine’s independence and establish a precedent that the border can be changed by force. At the same time, the war becomes extremely human and economically expensive when prolonged. When it comes to Trump, he can be challenged on how he would prefer to sell his headline-grabbing peace negotiation and the plan for its success. It may encourage violations of international norms and defaulters in other locations by providing them with a payoff perceived as rewarding aggression.
The urgency and pressure that will be made clear within a few weeks are also driven by the fact that Trump says this will be done once the negotiations are successful. The outcomes of peace negotiations conducted on a rigid political timetable may be fruitful or fail due to unresolved, confounding issues. The lack of a strict deadline makes it flexible, yet the population’s optimistic response raises higher expectations that are hard to meet.
The results of these negotiations extend far beyond Ukraine. A negotiated peace in the war would change relations between Russia and the West, reconsider NATO’s posture, and influence conflicts in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. Conversely, a flawed peace would neither end the war nor freeze it, leaving Ukraine in an indefinite state of security dilemma and Europe prone to further turmoil.
It has its merits and drawbacks, like Trump’s style, which does not provide a detailed roadmap; he prefers personal contact. The fact that a close approach will likely reduce the diplomatic dead air will also facilitate concentrating decision-making in a small circle at the cost of institutional protection and consensus among allies. In his turn, Zelensky appears to be walking a thin line: on the one hand, he is trying to be as optimistic as Trump, and on the other, he is trying to ensure Ukraine’s basic interests.
The bigger international response will be final. When Macron speaks of the Coalition of the Willing, he refers to Europe becoming prepared to invest in peace, not so much at the political level as at the material level. By making practical contributions to security, the European states can lend credibility to any agreement reached and deter further aggression. Otherwise, Ukraine would get naked despite the paper guarantees.
In any case, it is a victory and a warning that one should be nearer than ever to peace. It is an indication of actual progress, since there were years of stalemate, but also demonstrates the scale of the problem the issue still entails. Peace is not in the absence of fighting; it is a protracted political victory, a remedy that encompasses security, sovereignty, and justice. Until there is certainty regarding Donbas and a well-functioning enforcement system is in place, any transaction will likely remain just a suspension, not an end.
Trump’s positive position has added impetus to the process, and Zelensky’s presence indicates that Ukraine is finally ready to consider ending the war. It will be a historic breakthrough or another missed opportunity in how the remaining thorny issues will be dealt with. Peace may be or may not be accessible- the world may learn in a few weeks- but it may be long before it will be found out whether that peace, assuming it is obtained, is enduring.
