Talks between the US and Ukrainian delegations at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate lasted nearly three hours. Trump later described the meeting as "terrific" and said it had brought an end to the war "a lot closer."
He suggested that roughly 95 percent of the security guarantees under discussion had been agreed, while acknowledging that the central issue—the future of the Donbas region—remains unresolved.
A day earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin struck a similarly confident tone, arguing that the pace of Russia’s offensive in the Donbas had effectively eliminated Moscow’s interest in negotiating a Ukrainian withdrawal from the area, implying that Russia could complete its objectives militarily.
Setting aside the Kremlin’s premature—and twice repeated—claims of having "liberated" Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region, from which Russian forces would likely have to withdraw under any agreement, the current tempo of operations does not significantly exceed the war’s long-term average.
It is not a position from which decisive terms can credibly be imposed, even if Moscow continues to act as though it holds the upper hand.
Trump's own rhetoric has added to the ambiguity. At a joint press conference with Zelensky on Sunday, he said Russia "wants to see Ukraine succeed," describing Putin as "very generous" and suggesting Moscow could support Ukraine with low-cost energy and other supplies.
Zelensky's body language, broadcast live, conveyed visible skepticism toward a narrative that many observers view as detached from the realities of the war.
However much influence Ukraine and its European partners may exert over Trump’s 20-point plan, the US president appears to remain committed to a broader vision of normalizing relations with Russia—one he sees as necessary for a wider geopolitical realignment.
Kyiv, by contrast, appears to be betting that Moscow will eventually undermine the talks through maximalist demands, forcing Trump to adopt a more confrontational approach reminiscent of the Biden administration.
There is also a third possibility: that the failure of the current effort could mark Washington’s last serious attempt to broker a comprehensive deal.
As the year ends, Ukraine finds itself in a comparatively favorable strategic position.
It has endured another year of war, expanded and refined its domestic drone-strike capabilities—carrying out at least 350 successful deep-strike operations in 2025—extended the conflict’s reach to distant maritime theaters such as the Caspian and Mediterranean seas, and consolidated political support across much of Europe.
None of this diminishes the immense costs Ukraine continues to bear. The country remains strained by internal challenges, including high-level corruption scandals, mobilization shortfalls and battlefield exhaustion.
The toll of war, economically and demographically, remains far heavier for Ukraine than for Russia.
Yet Kyiv has not abandoned its resolve to defend its sovereignty, nor has it accepted solutions imposed from a position of force. Its leverage, fragile but real, continues to be tested—and demonstrated—on the battlefield each day.
Leon Pińczak
The author is a security and international affairs analyst at the Polityka Insight think tank in Warsaw.