Talks currently underway in Geneva could shape the end of the war in Ukraine, nearly four years after Russia’s invasion.
Last week, Donald Trump presented a 28-point proposal that, according to reports, had been discussed with Russia but not formally agreed upon by Ukraine or European partners. The plan was widely criticized in Kyiv and drew strong reactions across Europe, which had initially been excluded from the process.
Since yesterday, the US Secretary of State, senior American officials, Ukrainian representatives and European diplomats have been negotiating revisions to the proposal that could potentially form the basis of a final peace agreement.
Following a joint US–Ukraine statement issued yesterday, negotiators agreed that any final agreement must clearly safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.
This provision appears aimed at addressing concerns that earlier drafts could weaken Kyiv’s political or territorial independence.
The original US draft reportedly required Ukraine to abandon its ambition to join NATO and included provisions preventing NATO forces from being stationed on Ukrainian territory.
A European counterproposal (backed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom) suggests a more flexible framework:
This reflects an attempt to balance deterrence concerns with political realities inside the Alliance.
US draft proposal:
Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at approximately 600,000 personnel — roughly half their current size.
European counterproposal:
A limit of 800,000 troops.
The size of Ukraine’s military is seen as directly linked to its long-term deterrence capacity.
Rather than recognizing Russian territorial gains in eastern Ukraine outright, European negotiators propose opening talks on potential territorial exchanges.
This approach avoids automatic acceptance of current front lines while leaving room for negotiated adjustments.
“Security guarantees” refer to the mechanisms that would ensure Ukraine receives concrete and immediate support in the event of a renewed attack.
European representatives are reportedly pushing for clearer and more binding guarantees than those outlined in the initial US draft.
The strength and enforceability of these guarantees may ultimately determine whether any agreement is seen as durable.
