Russia wants to lock in gains before any pause happens
Trump and Zelenski claim 95% of a 20-point peace plan is resolved, but acknowledge thorny issues remain including Donbás future and ceasefire terms. Russia and US agreed to create bilateral working groups on security and economics to advance negotiations, with Putin rejecting temporary ceasefire proposals.
- Trump and Zelenski claim 95% of 20-point peace plan resolved after 3-hour Mar-a-Lago meeting
- Russia and US agreed to establish two working groups on security and economic issues
- Putin rejected temporary ceasefire, demanding permanent solution and Ukrainian concessions on Donbás
- Donbás status and ceasefire terms remain unresolved core issues
Trump and Zelenski reported advances in peace negotiations after a three-hour meeting, though no agreement was reached. Moscow agreed to establish working groups on security and economic issues but rejected a ceasefire.
Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenski emerged from a three-hour meeting at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday saying they had made meaningful progress toward ending the war in Ukraine, though they left Florida without a deal. The two leaders told reporters afterward that more than 95 percent of a twenty-point peace framework had been settled, yet Trump was candid about what remained unsolved: the status of the Donbás region, the mechanics of a ceasefire, and other questions he described as thorny. The meeting followed a phone call between Trump and Vladimir Putin, and came after Zelenski had spent days in talks with American officials.
What emerged from the Florida summit was not a peace agreement but a structure for continuing negotiations. Both Russia and Ukraine, Trump and Zelenski announced, had agreed to establish working groups with American participation—one focused on security matters, the other on economic issues—with the aim of reaching a final accord within weeks. No dates or locations were specified. Several European leaders participated by phone during the meeting, signaling that the continent remained engaged even as the primary negotiations centered on Washington.
Moscow's response came swiftly. The Kremlin confirmed Putin's conversation with Trump and, through presidential adviser Yuri Ushakov, made clear that Russia and the United States shared a view on one crucial point: they both rejected the idea of a temporary ceasefire. Ukrainian and European proposals for a pause in fighting—ostensibly to allow time for a referendum or other political steps—would only prolong the conflict and invite renewed combat, Ushakov said. For hostilities to truly end, he argued, Kyiv would need to make a decisive political choice about the Donbás, and the sooner the better given the current military situation.
Putin did accept Trump's proposal to establish the two working groups, a concession that suggested some willingness to engage in structured dialogue. Yet the Russian position on the core issue—a ceasefire—remained unmoved. Ushakov's language was pointed: Kiev's leadership needed to act without delay.
Europe, meanwhile, was watching closely. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, spoke with Trump and Zelenski in a separate call to discuss the state of the negotiations. She indicated that Europe stood ready to support both Ukraine and the United States in building on whatever progress had been made, but she emphasized a condition: any agreement would require robust security guarantees from day one. The implication was clear—Europe would not accept a peace that left Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression.
The twenty-point peace plan that Zelenski has been promoting includes a non-aggression pact with Russia and American security guarantees for Ukraine modeled on NATO commitments. On territory, Ukraine has proposed two paths forward: either freeze the current front lines where they stand, or establish a demilitarized zone in parts of Donetsk that Ukraine still controls but Russia claims. Moscow has rejected the entire framework.
What the Mar-a-Lago meeting revealed was a negotiation at a delicate stage—far enough along that both sides could claim progress, yet far enough from resolution that fundamental disagreements remained unresolved. The working groups represented a bet that structured talks on specific issues might unlock movement where broad negotiations had stalled. But Putin's rejection of any temporary ceasefire suggested that Russia was not interested in a pause that might allow Ukraine to regroup. The coming weeks would show whether the working groups could bridge that gap.
Citações Notáveis
A temporary ceasefire would only prolong the conflict and invite renewed combat— Yuri Ushakov, Kremlin adviser
Any agreement requires robust security guarantees from day one— Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Trump and Zelenski claim 95 percent agreement when so much clearly remains unsettled?
Because in negotiations, you need to show momentum to keep the other side at the table. If you say nothing is agreed, talks collapse. If you say almost everything is done, you create pressure to finish the last five percent.
But Putin rejected the ceasefire. Doesn't that mean the talks are essentially stalled?
Not necessarily. A ceasefire and a peace agreement are different things. Russia is saying it won't accept a temporary pause—it wants a permanent settlement. That's actually a negotiating position, not a door slam.
What's Russia's real concern with a temporary ceasefire?
Time. If fighting stops, Ukraine can rearm, reorganize, prepare for a new phase. Russia wants to lock in territorial gains and political concessions before any pause happens. A temporary ceasefire looks to Moscow like a reset button.
Why are the working groups significant if the fundamental disagreement on Donbás hasn't moved?
They're significant because they separate the problem into pieces. Security talks don't have to solve territory. Economic talks don't have to solve security. Sometimes you can move one piece and that creates room for movement elsewhere.
What does von der Leyen's emphasis on security guarantees really mean?
It means Europe is nervous. They're saying: we'll accept whatever you agree to, but only if Ukraine can't be invaded again next year. It's a condition wrapped in diplomatic language.
Is a deal likely in the coming weeks?
The working groups will meet, yes. Whether they produce an agreement depends on whether Russia is willing to accept something less than total victory. Right now, that's still an open question.