Meeting Reveals Months of Progress & 20 Point Peace Plan Toward Ending the War
A high-stakes meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday has generated headlines about progress toward ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. Both leaders described the discussions as productive, with President Trump stating that the sides are “getting a lot closer, maybe very close” to a deal, and Zelenskyy noting that a 20-point peace framework is about 90% agreed upon. Security guarantees for Ukraine—particularly a U.S.-Ukraine agreement described as 100% finalized, with broader U.S.-European-Ukrainian elements nearly complete—represent a key area of advancement.
ReadMore
However, significant hurdles persist. The most contentious issues revolve around territorial control, especially in the Donbas region, and the operation of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP). Trump described land as one of the “thorny” sticking points, suggesting Ukraine might be “better off making a deal now” before further Russian gains. Zelenskyy emphasized that these two elements remain unresolved in the 20-point plan, while reiterating Ukraine’s commitment to its laws, people, and controlled territory. No concrete breakthroughs on these fronts were announced, and a potential referendum in Ukraine (possibly requiring a temporary ceasefire) adds further complexity.
Russia’s response has been mixed and often skeptical. Kremlin officials have praised Trump’s efforts in principle but rejected elements of the proposals, including European peacekeepers and certain security arrangements. Following the meeting, Russia alleged a Ukrainian drone attack on one of Putin’s residences (a claim Kyiv dismissed as fabricated propaganda to derail talks), prompting Moscow to threaten a tougher negotiating stance—though it indicated it would not abandon discussions entirely. Russian advances on the battlefield continue slowly, with no immediate signs of de-escalation.
This situation echoes elements of Trump’s earlier foreign policy success, the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) in 2020. Those agreements delivered economic and diplomatic benefits, fostering trade, tourism, and security cooperation without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They have proven resilient even amid regional tensions, including the Gaza war and subsequent escalations, with ongoing efforts to expand them (e.g., potential inclusion of Central Asian nations like Kazakhstan in late 2025).
Applying a similar lens to Ukraine, Trump’s approach emphasizes direct engagement, personal rapport (including with Putin), and pragmatic incentives like energy cooperation and reconstruction aid, rather than open-ended military support. Proponents see it as a realistic path to halt the bloodshed in Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II. Skeptics point to risks: concessions on territory could undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, security guarantees (potentially limited to 15 years) might not deter future aggression, and Russia’s track record suggests it may exploit negotiations to regroup militarily.
As of December 29-30, 2025, momentum exists—working groups continue, and further talks (possibly involving European leaders in Washington or Paris) are planned for January—but optimism is tempered by ongoing fighting, mutual distrust, and unresolved core disputes. Whether this becomes another landmark deal or stalls amid battlefield realities remains uncertain. Trump’s deal-making style has yielded results before, but the Ukraine conflict’s scale, stakes, and geopolitical entanglements make it a challenging situation. The coming weeks will reveal whether “very close” translates to actual peace—or prolonged stalemate.
