Summary
The United States envoy Keith Kellogg has announced that a historic peace deal to resolve the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is within reach, marking a significant development in diplomatic efforts aimed at ending hostilities that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The conflict has resulted in Russia controlling roughly 19 percent of Ukrainian territory, including the strategically critical Donbas region and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, both of which remain key sticking points in negotiations. Kellogg, serving as the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, described the talks as being in the “last 10 metres,” signaling the difficult final phase of a peace settlement that could be finalized in the near term.
The peace negotiations have centered on a U.S.-proposed 28-point peace plan that aims to balance Ukrainian sovereignty with security guarantees and territorial arrangements acceptable to both Kyiv and Moscow. The plan includes provisions for a comprehensive non-aggression agreement, international supervision of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and a framework for a coalition to enforce a ceasefire. European countries have largely supported Ukraine’s positions, advocating for strong security guarantees and a ceasefire monitored by a coalition of allied troops, while Russia has consistently rejected such proposals, complicating diplomatic progress.
Kellogg’s “America First” negotiation strategy emphasizes conditional military aid to Ukraine and potential sanctions relief for Russia, alongside postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership as part of the compromise framework. Despite initial Ukrainian and European skepticism—particularly following leaked drafts perceived as overly favorable to Moscow—the ongoing revisions and high-level talks in Geneva and Abu Dhabi reflect earnest efforts to reconcile differences among the parties involved. Kellogg’s close coordination with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders has been pivotal in advancing dialogue toward a lasting peace that ensures Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction.
However, the peace process remains fraught with challenges, including disagreements over territorial concessions in Donbas, the future status of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and the selection of mediators, as well as skepticism about Russia’s willingness to negotiate in good faith. International reactions have been mixed, with broad support for peace talks tempered by persistent geopolitical tensions and Russia’s ongoing military offensives. As negotiations continue, the outcome of this historic peace effort will have profound implications for regional security and international diplomacy.
Background
Efforts to negotiate a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have intensified amid ongoing hostilities that began in February 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine following years of unrest in the Donbas region. The war has resulted in Russia controlling approximately 19 percent of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, Luhansk, most of Donetsk, and significant portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. A key sticking point in negotiations has been the status of the Donbas area and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, both considered critical to any potential peace settlement.
The United States, under the Trump administration, proposed a comprehensive 28-point peace plan aimed at resolving the conflict. This plan initially included provisions for Ukraine to cede control of the entire Donbas region to Russia, restrict the size of Ukraine’s military, prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and hold elections within 100 days. However, Ukrainian negotiators rejected these initial terms, viewing them as overly favorable to Russia, and the plan has since undergone revisions to reduce the number of points and alter certain provisions, although the full details remain unclear.
Diplomatic negotiations have taken place in multiple locations, including Abu Dhabi, Geneva, and Belarus. In late 2023 and early 2024, talks involved U.S., Ukrainian, and Russian officials, sometimes separately, focusing on refining the core terms of an agreement and seeking common ground. European countries have generally aligned more closely with Ukraine’s positions and proposed a ceasefire backed by a coalition of willing troops, while Russia has consistently rejected ceasefire calls and peace talks amid ongoing military offensives.
Despite these challenges, the outgoing U.S. envoy for Ukraine, Michael Kellogg, expressed optimism about the prospects for a peace deal, stating in late 2023 that the parties were in the “last 10 metres” of negotiations and that a settlement was “really close” pending resolution of key issues concerning Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia plant. This optimism coincides with ongoing diplomatic efforts, including productive discussions held in Geneva and revisions to the peace proposals that aim to balance the interests of all involved parties.
The Role of the US Envoy
Keith Kellogg has played a pivotal role as the US Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, spearheading diplomatic efforts aimed at brokering a historic peace deal between the conflicting parties. Known for advocating an “America First” negotiation strategy, Kellogg’s approach emphasizes pressuring both Kyiv and Moscow to make significant concessions, including conditional military aid to Ukraine and offering Russia sanctions relief alongside a delay in Ukraine’s NATO membership. His diplomatic efforts, which he described as being in the “last 10 metres”—the most challenging phase of any negotiation—underscore his belief that the peace agreement is within close reach.
Kellogg brings extensive international experience to his role, having served across multiple regions including Europe, the Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa. He holds a degree in Political Science from Santa Clara University and a master’s degree in International Studies from Kansas University. Beyond his diplomatic work, he has contributed to media outlets such as Fox News and CNN and previously co-chaired the Center for American Security. His appointment as special envoy in November 2024, during Donald Trump’s second presidential term, marked a continuation of his longstanding involvement with the Trump administration, dating back to 2015.
A significant aspect of Kellogg’s effectiveness stems from his direct communication with President Trump and his close working relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which is noted to span several years. This rapport has been instrumental in advancing talks, particularly as Kellogg has engaged with international partners such as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European leaders to align strategies for a sustainable peace. Despite the complexities of the peace proposals—ranging from Ukraine ceding territory and limiting its military to contentious ceasefire arrangements—Kellogg’s leadership has helped facilitate ongoing discussions and the creation of working groups tasked with addressing key issues in the conflict.
Under Kellogg’s guidance, the US and Ukraine held productive talks in Geneva in November 2025, emphasizing a shared commitment to a just and lasting peace that fully respects Ukraine’s sovereignty. Both parties agreed on the necessity of close coordination with European allies and reaffirmed the importance of decisions being ultimately made by the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine. While challenges remain, including skepticism around some negotiation texts and proposals, Kellogg’s role remains central in navigating the diplomatic complexities to secure a peace deal that ensures Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction.
The Historic Ukraine Peace Deal
In late 2025, significant diplomatic efforts culminated in what has been described as a historic peace deal framework between Ukraine and the United States. On 23 November 2025, representatives from both nations met in Geneva to discuss a U.S.-led peace proposal aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace, with talks characterized as constructive, focused, and respectful. Both sides reported meaningful progress toward aligning their positions and identifying clear next steps, emphasizing that any agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty while delivering sustainable security and reconstruction.
The U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who played a central role in the negotiations and was due to step down in January, described the diplomatic efforts as being in “the last 10 metres” — the most difficult phase of the negotiation process. Kellogg highlighted two primary outstanding issues that remained critical to resolving the conflict: the future status of the Donbas region and the fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest nuclear facility currently under Russian control.
Amid ongoing talks involving U.S., Ukrainian, and Russian officials—sometimes separately—the Ukrainian side agreed to the “core terms” of the peace proposal, reflecting a common understanding forged in multilateral discussions held in Geneva and Abu Dhabi. European countries aligned closely with Ukraine’s proposals, supporting a ceasefire safeguarded by a “coalition of the willing” with troops stationed in Ukraine, although Russia consistently rejected ceasefire calls and negotiations with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
The negotiation strategy pursued by the United States, often described as an “America First” approach, sought concessions from both Kyiv and Moscow. This approach included conditioning military aid to Ukraine on its engagement in peace talks and offering Russia potential sanctions relief and delays on Ukraine’s NATO membership. However, leaked drafts of U.S. peace proposals alarmed Ukrainian and European officials due to provisions perceived as conceding to Moscow’s demands, including Russian control over a fifth of Ukrainian territory and restrictions on Ukraine’s military. Subsequent revisions have been reported but details remain unclear.
Key provisions of the peace framework include confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty, establishing a comprehensive non-aggression agreement involving Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, and placing the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision with electricity output shared equally between Russia and Ukraine. The White House stressed that any final deal must incorporate robust security guarantees and deterrence measures to ensure Ukraine’s long-term security.
Throughout this process, both the United States and Ukraine have committed to ongoing collaboration and consultation with European partners, with final decisions to be made by the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States. The overarching goal remains securing a peace agreement that guarantees Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction in the post-conflict period.
Negotiation Process and Framework
The negotiation strategy pursued by U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg has often been described as an “America First” approach, aimed at pushing both Kyiv and Moscow to make concessions to reach a peace settlement. Kellogg, who has played a key role in the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts, has co-authored proposals that condition military aid to Ukraine on its participation in peace talks, while offering Russia sanctions relief and a postponement of Ukraine’s NATO membership as part of the compromise. Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum, Kellogg likened the ongoing discussions to the “last 10 metres” of a negotiation, emphasizing the complexity and difficulty of this final phase but affirming that the parties were “really, really close” to an agreement.
On 23 November 2025, representatives from the United States and Ukraine met in Geneva to discuss the U.S. peace proposal. The talks were reported to be constructive, focused, and respectful, reflecting a mutual commitment to achieving a just and lasting peace. Both sides acknowledged significant progress in aligning their positions and identifying clear next steps. They reiterated that any future agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and ensure sustainable peace. Additionally, the U.S. and Ukraine pledged to maintain close coordination with their European partners as negotiations continue, with final decisions to be made by the respective Presidents. The two sides expressed their readiness to work collaboratively to secure Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction.
European countries have shown greater alignment with Ukrainian proposals, advocating for a ceasefire monitored by a “coalition of the willing” comprising troops deployed in Ukraine. However, Russia has consistently refused ceasefire calls and rejected negotiations with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. All three—Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—are signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which provided security assurances to Ukraine, though its effectiveness has been questioned. Efforts to broaden negotiation frameworks have included proposals such as former Brazilian President Lula’s suggestion to form a “peace club” of developing countries, including Brazil and China, to mediate talks. The Holy See reportedly engaged in a secret peace mission, while UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated in May 2023 that peace talks were not feasible at the time due to Russia’s belief in eventual military victory. Despite such challenges, Ukrainian initiatives have persisted, including Zelenskyy’s proposal for U.S. involvement in developing Ukraine’s natural resources as part of continued support against Russian aggression.
The negotiation frameworks have revolved around comprehensive peace plans that include detailed provisions and security guarantees. The U.S. proposed a 28-point peace plan which has undergone scrutiny and modification, with a European counter-proposal from the E3 powers (Britain, France, and Germany) offering point-by-point amendments. Key elements include a total and complete non-aggression agreement between Russia and Ukraine and NATO, robust security guarantees for Ukraine, and the establishment of a joint security task force involving the U.S., Ukraine, Russia, and European nations to oversee the agreement’s implementation. Notably, the plans address contentious issues such as the supervision of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant by the International Atomic Energy Agency and equitable distribution of its electricity output between Russia and Ukraine.
However, leaked versions of the U.S. draft proposals have alarmed Ukrainian and European officials, who argue that the plan concedes to Moscow’s main demands, including Russian control over a fifth of Ukrainian territory, restrictions on Ukraine’s military, and limitations on NATO’s role in the region. The Kremlin has reportedly divided the proposals into four components, signaling Moscow’s acceptance of most points, which reflects the deep complexity and sensitivity of the negotiations.
Public and International Reactions
The prospect of a historic peace deal in Ukraine, as revealed by U.S. Envoy Keith Kellogg, has elicited a range of responses from public figures, governments, and international organizations. While there is cautious optimism among some participants about advancing peace talks, significant challenges and divergent views remain.
Several countries and diplomatic groups have expressed support for the establishment of working groups to develop key themes of the peace plan proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This plan calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from all Ukrainian territory and includes provisions such as the release of all prisoners of war and detained civilians. As of early 2024, the peace-related communiqué had been signed by 89 states and six organizations, though some delegates have withheld endorsement, reflecting ongoing divisions.
European powers have engaged actively in shaping the negotiation framework. The E3 nations—Britain, France, and Germany—submitted a detailed counter-proposal to the United States’ 28-point peace plan, suggesting modifications aimed at balancing security guarantees with territorial integrity. Their proposal includes provisions for a comprehensive non-aggression agreement involving Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, a commitment by NATO not to permanently station troops in Ukraine during peacetime, and coordinated responses to any renewed Russian aggression, including reimposition of sanctions. These measures indicate a concerted effort to create a de-escalatory environment while safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty, a point that is widely regarded as a key Ukrainian objective.
However, reactions from Russia have been skeptical and guarded. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia was ready to make agreements only if the realities on the ground and Russian security interests are adequately addressed. Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin has dismissed the feasibility of a ceasefire, citing Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive and characterizing the situation as incompatible with halting hostilities. Russian leadership has also been resistant to certain Ukrainian demands, including the size of Ukraine’s armed forces and NATO membership ambitions, viewing these as security threats.
Publicly, Zelenskyy has faced criticism from some quarters accusing him of echoing Russian propaganda, and a scheduled news conference following key meetings was canceled at the request of the United States, underscoring the sensitivity surrounding the negotiations. Nevertheless, Zelenskyy and U.S. officials, including Kellogg, have maintained close coordination with European partners and expressed readiness to continue working toward a peace that ensures Ukraine’s security, stability, and reconstruction.
The idea of security guarantees inspired by NATO’s Article 5 has emerged as a potential compromise, with discussions about obligating allies to assist Ukraine if attacked. Some NATO members, including Canada, have proposed sending peacekeeping troops should a ceasefire be established, though Russia remains opposed to NATO’s military presence in Eastern Ukraine.
In sum, while the announcement of a peace deal within reach has generated hope, the international reaction reveals complex geopolitical dynamics, unresolved security concerns, and cautious diplomacy that will shape the trajectory of the conflict’s resolution. The involvement of multiple stakeholders—including the United States, European powers, Russia, and international organizations—reflects the multifaceted nature of efforts to achieve a lasting peace in Ukraine.
Challenges and Criticisms
Efforts to negotiate a peace deal
Current Status and Next Steps
The peace negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine have entered a critical phase, with U.S. Special Representative Keith Kellogg describing the process as being in the “last 10 meters” toward a resolution, a metaphor he used to emphasize the difficulty and proximity to a final agreement. Kellogg expressed optimism that a peace deal could be achieved in the near term, defining this timeframe as within 100 days following the January 2025 inauguration of President Trump’s second term.
The current framework revolves around a revised 28-point U.S. peace plan, which has undergone several modifications from its initial iteration. Early versions of the plan faced criticism from European allies and Ukrainian officials, who regarded it as overly favorable to Russian demands—such as Ukraine ceding control of the entire Donbas region, imposing military limitations, blocking NATO membership, and holding elections within 100 days. However, ongoing negotiations have reportedly reduced the number of points and adjusted provisions, aiming to produce a version more acceptable to both Kyiv and Moscow.
Key issues remain sensitive, including territorial concessions—particularly regarding Donetsk Oblast—and security guarantees for Ukraine. Diplomatic efforts have involved intense engagement from envoys such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who have conducted direct talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to address these challenges. Moscow continues to insist on Ukrainian withdrawal from certain occupied areas, while U.S. negotiators explore alternative proposals to bridge gaps.
On November 23, 2025, U.S. and Ukrainian representatives convened in Geneva for constructive and focused discussions centered on the U.S. peace proposal. Both parties described the talks as highly productive, marking meaningful progress toward aligning their positions and identifying clear next steps. Importantly, they reaffirmed their commitment to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty and achieving a sustainable and just peace. It was also emphasized that final decisions under this framework would rest with the Presidents of Ukraine and the United States, underscoring the diplomatic nature of the process and the need for continued collaboration.
Looking ahead, a joint security taskforce comprising the United States, Ukraine, Russia, and European partners is proposed to promote and enforce the agreement’s provisions, reflecting an inclusive approach to peace implementation and monitoring. Both sides have pledged to maintain close communication with their European allies as negotiations advance, signaling a multilateral dimension to the peace process.
While challenges persist, Kellogg’s characterization of the negotiations as “really, really close” indicates a cautiously optimistic outlook that the enduring conflict may soon move toward resolution.
The content is provided by Jordan Fields, The True Signal
