Major turning point in the Russia-Ukraine war! Trump: 95% of peace agreement with Zelensky has been completed

After meeting with Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago on December 28, Trump claimed that the end-of-war agreement between Russia and Ukraine is “getting closer,” with the security guarantee agreement 95% complete. However, the status of Donbas remains a key deadlock, with Trump admitting it is “very tricky.” French President Macron stated that the “voluntary alliance” countries will finalize their specific contributions in early January in Paris. Trump expects to see clarity “within a few weeks,” but territorial issues still need breakthroughs.

Donbas sovereignty: the final deadlock in Russia-Ukraine peace talks

Despite Trump and Zelensky showing optimism at the joint press conference, the future of Donbas remains a core unresolved dispute. Moscow insists on control over the entire Donbas, including the industrial centers of Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been the focus of the Russia-Ukraine conflict since 2014. Conversely, Kyiv hopes to freeze the current front lines, meaning Ukraine would retain parts of Donbas under its military control.

Trump’s proposed compromise is controversial. According to the US proposal, Ukrainian forces would withdraw entirely from Donbas, but in exchange, a free economic zone would be established in the region. This aligns with Russia’s territorial demands but would mean Ukraine giving up strategic positions currently under its control. Zelensky previously expressed a desire to soften this proposal to avoid the humiliating outcome of a complete withdrawal.

How the free economic zone would be practically implemented remains unclear. Such zones typically enjoy tax benefits, simplified regulations, and trade facilitation, but in a region recently ravaged by war and with unresolved sovereignty, who would manage it? Russia, Ukraine, or an international trusteeship? These fundamental questions remain unanswered. Trump acknowledged on Sunday, “This is not resolved yet, but we are much closer to a solution. It’s a very tricky issue.”

This ambiguity is also reflected in public statements from both sides. Trump said discussions are “moving in the right direction,” but Zelensky emphasized that any peace agreement must be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament or through a national referendum. This suggests that even if leaders reach consensus, domestic approval in Ukraine could still reject any plan seen as too concessive. Trump stated he is willing to engage with the Ukrainian Parliament if it ensures the agreement’s success.

Contents of the 95% complete security guarantee agreement

Compared to the deadlock over Donbas, progress on security guarantees seems more tangible. Zelensky stated that an agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine has been reached, calling it a “key milestone for achieving lasting peace.” However, Trump was more cautious, saying that the two sides are “95% there” in reaching such an agreement, and emphasizing that European countries will bear “a large part” of the work with US support.

This difference in phrasing reveals key information. First, the specific form of security guarantees has not yet been finalized. Possible options include NATO membership (though unlikely in the short term), bilateral defense treaties, multilateral security assurance alliances, or long-term US military aid commitments similar to Israel’s model. Second, Trump deliberately emphasizes European responsibility, implying the US does not want to bear the long-term security burden alone.

French President Macron’s remarks provide more clues about the security framework. He posted on X that the “voluntary alliance” countries will meet in early January in Paris to finalize their “specific contributions.” This suggests a multilateral mechanism rather than a single great power umbrella. Participating countries may include the UK, France, Poland, and Baltic states, providing security through military training, weapons supplies, intelligence sharing, or joint exercises.

However, can this loose multilateral security alliance effectively deter future Russian aggression? Historical experience is not optimistic. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum promised to guarantee Ukraine’s security in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons, but when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, that promise was effectively worthless. Unless new security guarantees include clear military intervention clauses and credible enforcement mechanisms, they may remain just diplomatic rhetoric.

Key time nodes in peace negotiations

Clarity within a few weeks: Trump said “within a few weeks” it will be clear whether negotiations succeed, implying January to February 2026 as a critical window.

Early January Paris meeting: The “voluntary alliance” meeting convened by Macron will finalize the specific security contributions of European countries, a crucial step for the agreement’s implementation.

Ukrainian domestic approval: Zelensky emphasized that any agreement must be approved by Parliament or through a referendum, which could be a variable in the final ratification.

Three major variables in Russia-Ukraine peace talks

Despite Trump’s optimistic stance, the Russia-Ukraine peace process faces multiple uncertainties. First is Russia’s position. Is Putin truly willing to accept an agreement that does not include all of Donbas? Moscow’s military objectives over the past three years have been to fully control Donbas. Abandoning this goal at the negotiating table would put enormous pressure on Putin from hardliners domestically.

Second is Ukraine’s internal politics. Although Zelensky enjoys high support during wartime, any agreement perceived as betraying national territory could trigger a political crisis. Will Ukraine’s parliament and public opinion accept a plan to withdraw from Donbas in exchange for an economic zone? Especially after Ukrainian forces recover some lost territory in the summer of 2024, abandoning these costly gains would be highly controversial.

Third is Europe’s actual commitments. While Trump said Europe will shoulder most of the security work, will European countries truly be willing to provide credible long-term military protection for Ukraine? Germany’s new government is yet to be formed, France faces budget constraints, and Poland, though active, has limited military capacity. Whether this loose alliance can effectively deter Russia remains a big question.

Trump’s statement that “within a few weeks” the outcome will be clear may be a pressure tactic or a reflection that negotiations are indeed entering a critical phase. However, even if leaders reach a framework agreement, there is a long road from signing to implementation. The fate of Donbas, the specific form of security guarantees, and the actual commitments of all parties will continue to be contested in the coming weeks or months.