As the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, the contours of a possible end-game are becoming discernible, though the path to any settlement remains fraught with fundamental disagreements. The negotiating landscape has shifted markedly: European funding faces political fatigue, Washington has pivoted toward active mediation under the Trump administration, and multiple peace frameworks have circulated—from a 28-point American plan to a Ukrainian counter-proposal of 20 points. Yet the core question persists: what would a negotiated ceasefire actually look like, and will Ukraine be compelled to formally or de facto cede territories like the Donbas? The answer lies in a complex interplay of military realities, constitutional constraints, and the unresolved tension between territorial control and security guarantees.
The Territorial Impasse: The Donbas as the Crux
The territorial question, particularly the fate of the Donbas, has emerged as the most intractable obstacle to any settlement. Russia has consistently demanded that Ukraine surrender the remaining Ukrainian-controlled portions of the Donetsk region as a precondition for halting hostilities. As of mid-2026, Russia controlled virtually all of Luhansk oblast, approximately 80 percent of Donetsk, and about 75 percent of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. However, Moscow insists on securing the entirety of the Donbas—including the roughly 20 percent of Donetsk still under Ukrainian control—either through negotiation or continued military pressure.
This demand places Kyiv in an extraordinarily difficult position. The Ukrainian-controlled portion of Donetsk constitutes a heavily fortified “fortress belt” that has exacted enormous costs on Russian forces. According to Ukraine’s General Staff, Russian casualties have exceeded 1.39 million since February 2022, with battlefield losses surpassing recruitment since January 2026 . Ceding this territory would not only validate Russia’s maximalist claims but would also expose Ukraine’s eastern defenses, potentially inviting further aggression.
Ukrainian officials have explored various formulations to bridge this gap. One proposal involves the creation of a demilitarized zone in the Donbas—a strip of territory controlled by neither army, possibly administered by a civilian authority including both Russian and Ukrainian representatives. Another concept, reportedly discussed within the Zelensky administration, would involve a ceasefire along the current line of contact without legal recognition of lost territories, allowing Ukraine to maintain formal claims while pursuing EU integration. A third approach, floated by the United States, would establish a “free economic zone” in Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk, with Ukrainian forces withdrawing and Russian forces not entering—a proposal Zelensky has described but indicated lacks consensus.
The fundamental difficulty lies in the asymmetry of the demands. Russia insists on sovereignty over territories it has formally annexed—a position enshrined in its constitution since October 2022—while Ukraine’s constitution requires a national referendum for any territorial changes, a vote that cannot occur under martial law and which polling suggests would fail given that approximately 57 percent of Ukrainians oppose ceding unoccupied territory.
Security Guarantees: Ukraine’s Non-Negotiable
If territory represents the most visible obstacle, security guarantees constitute the most consequential. Ukraine’s experience with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum—which provided nominal assurances in exchange for nuclear disarmament but proved worthless when Russia invaded—has made Kyiv deeply skeptical of paper commitments. As Zelensky has emphasized, Ukraine requires “strong guarantees that the rest of the world—or some countries—will be ready to respond if or when Putin returns with his aggression.”
Ukraine’s 20-point peace plan, developed with U.S. input, outlines the parameters of what Kyiv considers acceptable: security guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5 collective defense, a peacetime army of 800,000 personnel, and EU membership as a security guarantee . The plan notably avoids mentioning NATO membership—a significant concession given that Ukraine’s constitution enshrines NATO accession as a strategic goal—but insists on binding, enforceable commitments from Western powers.
Russia, however, has consistently rejected any arrangement that would place Western forces or peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory. The Kremlin’s core objective extends beyond territorial acquisition to Ukraine’s neutralization and demilitarization—a state incapable of posing a military threat to Russia and free from Western military presence . This fundamental divergence means that even if the territorial question were resolved, the security architecture would remain contested.
European nations have grappled with how to provide meaningful guarantees without triggering direct confrontation with Russia. The “coalition of the willing” concept—involving European peacekeepers and bilateral security arrangements—remains underdeveloped, and Russia’s opposition to foreign troops on Ukrainian soil makes any such deployment a potential flashpoint.
The Role of External Actors: Washington’s Pivot and European Fatigue
The geopolitical context shaping these negotiations has shifted considerably. The Trump administration has adopted a posture of active mediation, pressing Kyiv to make concessions while engaging Moscow directly. Trump’s messaging has been blunt: “Zelensky is going to have to get moving. Russia wants to make a deal, and Zelensky is going to have to get moving otherwise, he’s going to miss a great opportunity.” U.S. officials have reportedly suggested that an end to the war “could come as quickly as possible if Kyiv withdraws from the Donbas.”
This pressure has generated friction in U.S.-Ukraine relations. Ukrainian officials have questioned why Washington appears to pressure Kyiv more heavily than Moscow, particularly given Russia’s refusal to compromise on its maximalist territorial demands. The perception that the United States is prioritizing economic incentives—including discussions of lifting sanctions and accessing Russian resources worth potentially trillions of dollars—over Ukraine’s security interests has fueled resentment in Kyiv.
Meanwhile, European funding has experienced fatigue, though not collapse. The EU approved a €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan in December 2025, with two-thirds expected to go toward military support, and unlocked €6.6 billion under the European Peace Facility after resolving Hungarian objections . Yet the political will to sustain this level of support indefinitely is uncertain, and European leaders have sought to maintain a voice in negotiations rather than ceding the process entirely to Washington.
The emergence of the “spirit of Anchorage”—referring to the August 2025 Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska—illustrates the complexity of the diplomatic landscape. Russia has asserted that the Anchorage talks yielded a U.S.-Russian understanding about the outlines of a peace deal, allegedly including American acceptance of Russian control over the Donbas. U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have disputed this characterization, stating that “there was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement” . This dispute over what was or was not agreed has become a source of tension, with Russia accusing the United States of reneging on understandings.
Scenario for a Ceasefire: Frozen Conflict or Durable Settlement?
The most likely end-game scenario, based on current negotiating positions and military realities, resembles a frozen conflict rather than a comprehensive peace settlement. Such an outcome would involve a ceasefire along the current line of contact, with Ukraine maintaining formal claims to occupied territories but accepting de facto loss of control. This approach—referred to by some Ukrainian officials as a “freeze without recognition”—would allow Kyiv to preserve its legal position while ending active hostilities.
The military track of negotiations has reportedly made the most progress, with discussions focusing on practical implementation: withdrawal lines, monitoring mechanisms, and violation protocols . Yet the success of any military arrangement depends entirely on political agreements that remain elusive.
The sequencing of steps has itself become a contested issue. Ukraine insists that security guarantees must be formalized before any territorial concessions or elections. Zelensky has stated: “I would very much like us to sign security guarantees first and then sign other documents. In my view, that would be a good signal. This is not even a matter of fairness, but a matter of trust” . Russia, conversely, has sought to condition any ceasefire on Ukrainian withdrawal from contested territories and has rejected short-term truces that it views as opportunities for Ukraine to regroup and rearm.
For a ceasefire to hold, several conditions would likely need to be met: a demilitarized zone or monitored buffer along the contact line; agreement on the status of the Donbas that allows both sides to claim some form of victory; and credible security guarantees that deter renewed Russian aggression. None of these conditions is currently satisfied.
Conclusion: The Limits of Compromise
The terms of an end-game in Ukraine remain deeply contested because the fundamental interests of the parties are irreconcilable in key respects. Russia seeks recognition of its territorial gains, Ukrainian neutrality, and limits on Kyiv’s military capabilities. Ukraine demands restoration of its territorial integrity—or at minimum, security guarantees robust enough to ensure that any ceasefire is not merely a prelude to further aggression. The United States, under the Trump administration, appears to prioritize ending the war over achieving a just settlement, while European powers struggle to maintain influence without direct channels to Moscow.
Will Ukraine be forced to cede the Donbas? Formally, almost certainly not—Ukraine’s constitution and the political realities of a population that has endured immense sacrifice to defend the region make formal cession politically unsustainable. But de facto, the likely outcome is a frozen conflict in which Ukraine does not recognize Russian sovereignty but cannot reclaim occupied territories by force. As Valery Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief, observed: “Victory, for both Russia and Ukraine, is increasingly a question of how to sell the outcome as a victory. Someone will gain territory and people and call that ‘victory’; someone will lose almost everything yet still try to sell it as ‘victory’ to their people.”
The end-game, if it arrives, will not be a clean resolution but a messy, unstable equilibrium—a ceasefire that neither side celebrates, territorial lines that neither side fully accepts, and security arrangements that remain vulnerable to collapse. Whether such an outcome can be achieved, and whether it can endure, depends on factors beyond the control of any single actor: the trajectory of the war, the cohesion of Western support, and the calculations of a Kremlin that has shown little inclination to abandon its maximalist objectives.
