Nobody knows when the talks will happen, or in what city. It is unclear who might be sitting at the table, or what format the discussion will take. But at some point in the coming months, the incoming US administration will likely attempt to negotiate an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Donald Trump takes office in January and with his self-image as a great dealmaker boasted on the campaign trail that he could end the war in 24 hours. Last week, Trump appointed the retired army general Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, tasked primarily with ending the war. Or as Trump put it in his online announcement, to “secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH”.
As the US transition approaches, both Moscow and Kyiv are warily considering the prospect of talks, downplaying the idea publicly yet manoeuvring to be in the best possible position when Trump takes office. Ukraine, after finally receiving a long-requested green light, has begun firing western-supplied long-range missiles into Russia; Putin, in response, used a nuclear-capable ballistic missile to hit the city of Dnipro last month, and followed it up with escalatory threats.
An easy path to a peace deal is hard to discern. A common assumption in the west has been that freezing the line of conflict could be a prelude to talks, but neither side appears keen: Russia, because it is advancing on the battlefield; Ukraine, because it fears that without real security guarantees from the west freezing the lines would simply give Russia time to regroup before it launched a fresh assault.
“It would mean losing the war,” said Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview with the Guardian in Kyiv. “Russia gets our territory, and then they will dominate at the negotiation table, with new demands … I don’t really understand what these talks would be. Would it just be that we are told to fulfil Russia’s ultimatums? How would that be in Ukraine’s interest, after three years of resistance?”
Moscow, for now, is equally uninterested in freezing the lines, believing it can win more territory and then sue for peace when Ukraine has no choice but to accept even harsher terms.
“When the US envisions negotiations with Putin, they imagine both sides sitting at the table seeking compromise,” said Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat who resigned over the full-scale invasion in 2022. “But that’s not how Putin operates now. He will simply present his demands … If Trump agrees, he will look like a loser.”
Interviews with numerous sources close to decision-makers in both Kyiv and Moscow suggest Kellogg will have his work cut out. Moscow considers Trump to be a chaos candidate and may be keen to see if he is willing to abandon Ukraine, but is not likely to offer real concessions.
Ukraine is thoroughly exhausted after three years of war and struggling to hold back a Russian advance. An increasing percentage of Ukrainians say they would be willing to accept territorial compromises packaged with security guarantees. Zelenskyy has carefully softened his rhetoric on talks in press appearances over the last week while Ukrainian media has reported his chief of staff has travelled to Washington to meet Kellogg; the vice president-elect, JD Vance; and other members of the Trump team.
Zelenskyy now suggests Ukraine may consider a freezing of the frontline as it stands, as the first step towards some kind of deal, as long as “Ukraine is already strengthened by its partners [and has] enough long-distance weapons and an invitation to Nato”.
So far, that invitation is not forthcoming.
Kellogg’s strategy
Kellogg has previously expressed the Trumpian view that Russia invaded Ukraine because there was a global lack of respect for the US under Joe Biden. “A war born in American weakness can only be ended by American strength,” he wrote in testimony to a Senate hearing last year. “That’s why the path to bringing these negotiations about is to enable Ukraine to defeat the Russian army in Ukraine … and provide Ukraine with the military armament it needs to [do so]”.
More recently, he has suggested a dual approach to bring about a settlement: threatening to cut off military aid to Kyiv if it does not enter talks, but also threatening to boost this aid if Moscow did not negotiate.
Kurt Volker, Trump’s Ukraine envoy during his first term and a former US ambassador to Nato, praised Kellogg’s appointment. “He is a very solid choice, an experienced, serious guy. He clearly understands what Putin is all about, and that Ukraine needs to be well armed and have real security guarantees.”
Volker’s stint as Ukraine envoy ended up with him dragged into impeachment hearings after Trump put pressure on the Ukrainian authorities for compromising material on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Nevertheless, he said he is “cautiously optimistic” on Trump’s ability to end to the conflict.
“I think he saw what a disaster Afghanistan was for Biden, and he doesn’t want Ukraine to be his Afghanistan,” said Volker. “He doesn’t want to appear weak, and doesn’t want to appear to be defeated by Putin. I don’t see him throwing Ukraine under the bus. What I do see is him wanting to end the war, and if Putin refuses, then he would tell Putin, ‘We’re just going to give them all the weapons, all the money, that they need.’”
Others in Trump’s orbit espouse more isolationist or pro-Russian narratives, and it is not clear that Trump himself knows what shape his Ukraine policy will yet take. The scattergun messaging makes it difficult for officials in Kyiv to know what the final policy will be, or to decide which statements to engage with and which to ignore. Elon Musk, who was on the line during Trump’s post-election call with Zelenskyy, recently used a post on X to mock Zelenskyy’s claim that Ukraine is an independent country.
“I don’t mind what people say, they want to be noticed and to get attention,” said Podolyak with a sigh when asked about Musk. “Sometimes people don’t know the topic well. They don’t understand this isn’t a war on Twitter, on X, it’s not a computer game. It’s a real war where one country has invaded another and is mass killing people.”
Kellogg, at least, does understand this. He has visited wartime Ukraine, including the east of the country, which has been battered by months of fighting and Russian occupation. Those in Zelenskyy’s inner circle say witnessing the devastation first-hand has often been enough to change the policy outlook of foreign politicians.
Officials in Kyiv hope that the Kellogg approach, if Trump follows it, could eventually be better for Ukraine than the drip-drip incrementalism of the Biden administration, which has roundly irritated most Ukrainian officials.
The idea of Trump as a saviour for Ukraine, as unlikely as it may seem, holds an appeal for an exhausted nation without a clear path to victory. One security source, speaking before the election, admitted that negotiations under Trump could be like “a trip to the casino” for Ukraine. “But by now everyone is exhausted, and some people are willing to make risky bets.”
The Putin problem
Putin has suggested he is ready to stop the war only if Russia keeps control of Crimea, plus the four Ukrainian regions he laid claim to in 2022, even where his troops do not control major settlements in these regions. He also wants guarantees Ukraine will not join Nato, as well as some level of demilitarisation.
“So far, I’ve seen no indications, either privately or publicly, that Moscow is particularly flexible in its stance. Those signals simply haven’t been there,” said one source in the Russian foreign policy establishment. “But it will be up to Putin to decide how much room for compromise exists.”
Russia is feeling the human and financial cost of the fighting, but with the war among his top priorities, Putin is unlikely to jump into a peace deal just to stop the losses.
“Of course he wants it to be over, absolutely,” said the political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya. “But if it doesn’t work out, if he has to prepare for a long war, that’s not going to stop him. He’s not going to change his mind, he’s not going to weigh the pros and cons and decide to stop. It’s not going to happen.”
One source briefed on top-level Kremlin discussions about possible negotiation tactics suggested Moscow is curious about potential overtures from the US, but may have little interest in signing a deal. The source suggested that Moscow could keep the talks going to prolong the fighting while shifting its terms for peace.
Another source in the Russian foreign policy establishment said: “The situation on the ground could look very different in two months, and if Russia senses it can achieve more militarily, it will pursue that option before considering any negotiations.”
The frontline
Ukraine has been losing ground in recent weeks, but one key area for talks will be the Ukraine-occupied areas of Russia’s Kursk region. It still controls about 60% of the territory it seized in a surprise late-summer offensive, including the town of Sudzha, which was once home to 5,000 people.
Supporters say Kursk allowed Ukraine to seize momentum and gives it a rare card to play at future negotiations. Opponents say it was a needless distraction that allowed Russia to advance elsewhere.
Which side of the argument prevails will probably depend on if Ukraine can hold on to at least some of the territory. Kyiv has precious few points where it can apply pressure in talks, but a small chunk of Russian territory should be a chance to ask for something in return.
“After initially losing a lot of ground, we’ve dug in well and it won’t be easy for them to take it back now,” said one Ukrainian officer who regularly travels to the occupied Kursk region. “They have intensified strikes on Sudzha with guided air bombs – they are levelling their own territory just like they levelled ours, anything to get it back,” the officer added.
With both sides fixated on Kursk, Russia has been making grinding but steady advances elsewhere amid worried whispers in Ukraine about an approaching major Russian offensive. Kyiv has a manpower crisis at the front, which has led to the US administration publicly telling Kyiv it should lower the mobilisation age from 25 to 18. It is a move with such moral and political repercussions that Zelenskyy has ruled it out.
The negotiating table
Trump enjoys showpiece summits, but there seems little chance Putin or Zelenskyy would agree to sit in a room together, even with Trump sandwiched between, so the prospect of a grand bargain between three presidents appears slim. Instead, talks are likely to involve lower-level delegations, perhaps with US officials as mediators.
“It will be very important to see who will be there from the Russian side,” said Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s former defence minister, who took part in negotiations in Belarus and Turkey during the early weeks of the war. “None of the people at the table had any power, but there was one person walking behind them, drinking coffee and staying silent, and he was the most important Russian in the room,” said Reznikov, recalling the talks.
That was the oligarch Roman Abramovich, who has continued to play a major role in behind-the-scenes negotiations on prisoner exchanges. So much rests on Putin’s personal decisions, Reznikov said, that if the delegation does not include Abramovich or another senior figure “with the power to open the door to Putin and get his reaction” negotiations will have little value. They may simply be a time-wasting tactic, or a show of faux goodwill.
Security guarantees
The crunch question is what security guarantees Ukraine could receive if it agreed to a ceasefire. “I fear nobody is ready to give us any guarantees. We can hope, but it seems unlikely,” said Volodymyr Fesenko, a Kyiv-based political analyst.
The most obvious assurance would be to bring Ukraine into Nato, but neither Trump nor most European countries have the appetite. If they suddenly changed their mind, the Kremlin would do everything in its power to block it.
“Ukrainian Nato membership is an absolute non-starter for Russia,” said one of the sources in the Russian foreign policy establishment. Faced with that threat, Putin would simply keep fighting.
One idea floated has been for a peacekeeping force on the frozen frontlines, with the Trump team keen European countries take the lead. But Putin would hardly agree to the introduction of thousands of European troops to Ukraine – his paranoia over such a scenario was one of the prompts to launch the invasion in the first place. “It’s unthinkable the Russians would agree to this, I’m surprised people are seriously suggesting it,” said Fesenko.
That may leave the option of a UN-mandated mission, but here Kyiv would surely object to troops from Russia-allied countries patrolling Ukrainian territory. Sourcing sufficient forces to patrol a highly militarised 1,000-km frontline would also be complicated and expensive.
If Russia continues to advance on the battlefield, there may come a point where Kyiv has to accept peace on any terms. But for now it’s hard to see Zelenskyy agreeing to anything without attached guarantees.
As he put it during a press conference this week: “If we will have frozen conflict without any strong position for Ukraine, Putin will come in two, three, five years … He will come back and will destroy us totally.”
