Percentages of peace and war Following the Trump–Zelenskyy meeting in Florida

On December 28, after a three-hour meeting at the U.S. president’s Florida estate, U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced “a lot of progress” toward ending the war with Russia. According to Trump, about 95% of the terms of a peace agreement have been agreed upon, and the final details could be settled in the coming days.

However, the main issue—the fate of the Donbas region—remains unresolved. The situation is as simple as it is complicated: Putin demands control over the entire region, Zelenskyy opposes this, and Trump is pushing for a swift deal.

Zelenskyy emphasised that security guarantees, rather than territorial concessions, are key for Ukraine. He added that the Ukrainian side will continue discussions with European partners and is prepared to submit certain points of the peace agreement to parliament or hold a referendum, primarily regarding territorial concessions.

The Ukrainian president’s firm opposition to Donald Trump’s previously expressed attempts to convince Kyiv to make concessions on the Donbas issue was striking. At the same time, in the visible part of the meeting—namely, during the joint press conference—the U.S. president did not challenge Zelenskyy and gladly spoke about the aforementioned 95 per cent progress, although he could not resist teasing the Ukrainian leader with a remark about Putin’s “generosity,” noting that the Russian president is willing to help Ukraine economically.

Despite the lack of agreement on the key territorial issue, both leaders appeared satisfied. It is clear that the meeting at Mar-a-Lago was needed by both sides.

For Trump, it was an opportunity to end the calendar year on a ceremonious peacekeeping note. Presumably, the “95 per cent” figure will, for a time, become a new hallmark of the American leader’s peacemaking reputation.

For Zelenskyy, the meeting was necessary primarily to demonstrate progress in the settlement process to Ukrainian society—with minimal compromises—thanks largely to Trump’s attitude. Zelenskyy’s goal is to prolong resistance (especially as the EU has granted Kyiv a new tranche of €90 billion) in the hope that over the coming year a weakness can be found in Russia’s military machine, thereby forcing Moscow to significantly lower its demands before the cessation of hostilities.

At the same time, the Ukrainian president allows for the possibility that a temporary ceasefire could be reached to hold presidential elections, for which he also needs a boost in his ratings. Resolving the issues of security guarantees and maintaining a firm position on territorial matters would thus become a major advantage in Zelenskyy’s list of pre-election strengths.

At the same time, while verbally showing a willingness to discuss the territorial issue, Zelenskyy is making every effort to ensure that Moscow itself abandons the idea of a final ceasefire. His cynical Christmas message directed at the Russian president likely served this very purpose.

Meanwhile, ahead of Zelenskyy’s visit to the U.S., Putin also sought to strengthen Russia’s negotiating position through tough rhetoric and a show of force. In a meeting with the General Staff leadership, he accused Ukraine of starting the war, of refusing to “resolve the conflict by peaceful means,” and stated that Russia is ready to achieve all its objectives “by military means,” while Kyiv once again came under heavy attack.

But that’s not all. On the night of December 28–29, Russian media reported that the Ukrainian armed forces had attacked Putin’s residence in Valdai. Kyiv denied any involvement in the incident and, moreover, claimed that the report of the attack was fabricated by the Kremlin to justify the anticipated collapse of negotiations and a new wave of strikes on Ukrainian cities.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow would reassess the country’s negotiating positions “following the attack by Ukrainian drones on the head of state’s residence.”

Thus, despite the optimistic statements by the American and Ukrainian leaders about progress in the settlement process, it must be acknowledged that no real breakthrough is in sight. The reported 95 per cent reflects only the quantitative—but not qualitative—coverage of the peace plan. The most important point—the territorial issue—remains unresolved and will continue to obstruct peace, even if it accounts for not 5 or 3 per cent, but merely 1 per cent of the overall peace agenda.