The War in Ukraine Could End Fast: Breakthrough Negotiations and Potential Compromises

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on August 19, 2025.

After years of diplomatic paralysis, the war in Ukraine may be approaching a turning point that few anticipated. Following a summit in Alaska between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, both Russia and Ukraine have begun signaling willingness to make significant compromises—the kind of concessions that could enable Putin and Zelenskyy to agree on ending the conflict. Without fanfare or bravado, a potential breakthrough is emerging in Eastern Europe, one that could produce a ceasefire seemingly out of nowhere. While any ceasefire terms won't be easy for Ukraine to accept, the conditions within reach today represent a substantial improvement over Russia's previous offers. Understanding what has changed on both sides, what might be possible in negotiations, and what a post-war Ukraine could look like has become urgently necessary as these rapid developments unfold.

Key Takeaways

Russia has reportedly softened its territorial demands, indicating willingness to accept control over Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts rather than insisting on all four previously claimed regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia).

Ukraine's President Zelenskyy has shifted his position for the first time, stating that negotiations can start from current front line positions rather than insisting on full territorial restoration including Crimea.

Putin has allegedly agreed to allow the United States and European nations to offer Ukraine security guarantees providing protection against future Russian aggression, outside formal NATO membership.

Both sides have agreed to engage in direct negotiations as soon as possible, with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European leaders expressing optimism about ending the conflict.

Outstanding issues remain, including Ukraine's insistence on a temporary ceasefire before negotiations begin, Russia's potential constraints on Ukraine's future military capabilities, and the fundamental question of whether Russia's apparent concessions represent genuine compromise or strategic maneuvering.

The changes observed are primarily rhetorical shifts rather than formalized agreements, but represent significant departures from previously rigid positions held by both parties.

The Alaska Summit and Its Aftermath

The summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska initially appeared inconclusive, leaving observers without clear news in either direction. With only vague claims of progress and no details, outlines, or press questions, the immediate aftermath suggested neither advancement nor setback in peace prospects. However, over the following weekend, a steady stream of revelations began emerging from Alaska, starting with information from Trump's own circle.

According to sources within Washington, Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday night centered on one crucial change in Russia's position. Before the summit, Putin had consistently stated that Russia would insist on complete control of the four Ukrainian oblasts that Russia claims to have annexed. However, his ambitions appeared more limited in private conversation. During the summit, Putin expressed that if Kyiv ceded territorial control of Donetsk Oblast—already mostly under Russian control—and accepted Russian control over Luhansk Oblast, which Russian forces already control entirely, then Russia would consent to freezing the front lines across the rest of Ukraine. For Russia, this represents a fairly major concession and demonstrates potential willingness to accept far more neutral ceasefire terms than previously advocated.

When Trump first explained this offer, Zelenskyy rejected it. But in a surprising turn of events from Kyiv, it took less than forty-eight hours for Zelenskyy to change his position. Previously, just as Putin had been demanding full control of four Ukrainian oblasts—not just Donetsk and Luhansk, but also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—Zelenskyy had maintained a similarly hardline position in the opposite direction. According to Zelenskyy's prior stance, Ukraine intended to seek full return of all territory occupied by Russia, including all four oblasts in question and the Crimean isthmus, annexed and occupied by Russia in 2014. Zelenskyy had been arguing that because the Ukrainian constitution does not grant him the right to cede the nation's territory, any land swap was fundamentally impossible, much to Donald Trump's frustration.

Zelenskyy's Historic Shift

When Zelenskyy gave a press conference on Sunday in Brussels, ahead of his meeting with Trump in Washington, he changed his position on territorial negotiations for the very first time. Regarding the prospect of a land swap, Zelenskyy stated: "We need real negotiations, which means we can start where the front line is now." Zelenskyy expressed that his position came with the support of allied leaders in Europe, indicating that this shift represented not just a personal decision but a coordinated position with Ukraine's Western partners.

This represents a monumental change in Ukraine's negotiating posture. For years, Zelenskyy had maintained that constitutional constraints prevented him from agreeing to any territorial concessions. His willingness to now begin negotiations from current front line positions signals a pragmatic recognition of the military and diplomatic realities facing Ukraine. While this doesn't mean Ukraine is abandoning its territorial claims entirely, it does suggest a willingness to accept a frozen conflict scenario as a starting point for peace talks, potentially with mechanisms for addressing territorial questions in the future.

Security Guarantees Outside NATO

Also on Sunday, Trump's primary negotiating envoy, Steve Witkoff, told CNN that Putin had made another major concession at the Alaska meeting. According to Witkoff, Putin agreed that the United States and European nations could offer Ukraine a security guarantee, essentially pledging that the US and Europe would defend Ukraine's sovereignty against any further invasion by Russia. On its face, this might seem to contradict Trump's statement on Monday, when he told Ukraine over social media to accept that for the foreseeable future, Ukraine has no hope of joining NATO.

However, what Witkoff describes, and what Vladimir Putin supposedly agreed to, isn't that Ukraine would join NATO itself. Rather, it's that Ukraine would receive a major benefit generally tied to NATO membership: a collective security agreement with the US and Europe that Ukraine can use as a guarantor of its sovereignty in the years to come. While this offer is surprising coming from Putin, it's important because it inherently offers Putin a win of his own—namely, the ability to return to Russia and claim victory because he kept Ukraine out of NATO. The offer would likely allow European troops to deploy to Ukraine as part of a coalition of the willing, a presence on Russia's border that Putin has seemed to suggest he could accept. Quoting Witkoff: "We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as gamechanging."

This arrangement could provide Ukraine with substantive security protections while allowing Putin to save face domestically by claiming he prevented NATO expansion. For Ukraine, the practical security benefits might be nearly equivalent to NATO membership, even if the formal organizational affiliation is absent. The key question will be whether these security guarantees include specific commitments regarding military assistance, troop deployments, and response mechanisms in the event of renewed Russian aggression.

The Washington Summit

On Monday, August eighteenth, Zelenskyy and leaders from NATO and several European nations joined Donald Trump at the White House for their own summit, and again, all parties indicated that a push toward peace was a real possibility. Despite a wave of Russian attacks against Ukrainian population centers that day, Ukraine and its European allies agreed to engage Russia in direct negotiations as soon as possible. Details from the meeting behind closed doors hadn't leaked out as of the time of the source material, but a chorus of public statements from Zelenskyy and his European partners all indicated, at least for the global press, that things were headed in the right direction.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told the press: "If we play this well, we could end this. And we have to end it." This statement from NATO's top official represents a significant endorsement of the negotiation process and suggests that the alliance sees a genuine opportunity for peace. The fact that European leaders traveled to Washington alongside Zelenskyy also demonstrates coordinated Western positioning, ensuring that Ukraine doesn't negotiate in isolation and that European security interests remain represented in any potential agreement.

Understanding the Rhetoric Versus Reality

At this stage, it's crucial to recognize that what's being observed are primarily changes in rhetoric, some coming from the involved parties themselves and some described secondhand by other international actors. Ukraine and Russia are each publicly sticking to many of their prior hardline positions, even while seeming to contradict those positions in real time. But in a negotiation to end a years-long war, hardline positions that reiterate each side's unwillingness to compromise are cheap and easy statements to make, with no real consequences other than a continuation of the status quo.

Statements of potential compromise, however, are not nearly so easy to abandon, and until the last several days, both sides had been very disciplined about avoiding anything that might even hint at a willingness to back off some of their claims. For Russia and Ukraine both to be changing that now represents an important shift on its own, even before it's followed by action. The willingness to publicly acknowledge flexibility, even in limited terms, creates political space for actual negotiations and signals to domestic audiences that compromise may be necessary and acceptable.

The Reality of Territorial Compromise

Putting aside the rhetoric from both sides, the reality of the situation in Ukraine is that in any peace deal, Ukraine would probably have to make some major sacrifices. Russia sits on roughly a fifth of Ukraine's territory, and for Russia to agree to give that territory back without facing any overwhelming threat that would lead Putin to raise the white flag has always been an unrealistic outcome. Similarly, a peace deal would probably require Putin to relinquish at least some of his territorial claims in Ukraine. Just like Russia, Ukraine's position isn't nearly so terrible right now that the nation would be forced into agreeing to give back a huge chunk of land.

For both Putin and Zelenskyy to admit that they're willing to accept less-than-ideal territorial conditions at basically the same time represents a massive change. More importantly, the terms they've each endorsed suggest that there's room to achieve a genuine compromise. If taken at his word, Zelenskyy would enter peace negotiations starting with the boundaries of the current front line, meaning by default the condition he and Ukraine would consent to would be for the front line to freeze. If Putin's word is taken as reported by sources in Washington, then his default condition is also a frozen front line, except for Donetsk Oblast, which Russia would control fully. Russia would also control Luhansk Oblast fully, but that's already the case.

Potential Territorial Exchanges

Even though Zelenskyy has provisionally rejected Russia's proposal regarding Donetsk Oblast, that stance appears to already be changing. If Russia is willing to bargain for control over Donetsk Oblast, then it could make a series of meaningful offers to Ukraine in return. Russia controls a chunk of border territory near the city of Sumy, where Ukrainian leaders reported that Russian forces have been defeated and deterred from their attempt to actually take the city itself. Russia also holds a narrow pocket of land in Kharkiv Oblast, and Russia controls the zone along the regional border with Luhansk near Kharkiv.

If Russia were willing to give each of those three zones back to Ukraine, it may allow Ukraine to accept Russian control over Donetsk in its entirety, especially when that territorial swap is paired with non-territorial concessions that Russia might be willing to make. This kind of territorial exchange would allow both sides to claim some form of victory: Russia could point to its control over the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), while Ukraine could highlight the return of strategically important border territories and the halting of Russian advances elsewhere. The key is whether such an arrangement could be presented to domestic audiences on both sides as an acceptable outcome worth ending the war.

NATO Membership Versus Security Guarantees

The question of Ukraine's NATO membership must be broken apart into two components: Ukraine's desire to have a NATO-style security guarantee from the West versus Ukraine's desire to be a formal, proper part of the organization known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If Ukraine wants the latter, if it wants to explicitly be part of NATO, then Putin's apparent offer to accept a NATO-style security guarantee would be a non-starter. But if, ultimately, the thing that Ukraine needs most is a security guarantee, then a lack of formal NATO membership might not mean very much in practice.

If Putin's ultimate objective is to save face and essentially claim victory on a technicality, then there's no reason why Ukraine wouldn't be able to hammer out an extensive deal with NATO member nations, building on the arms agreements, the interoperability principles, and the diplomatic relationships that Ukraine already has with those nations. In fact, once those deals were in place, it might not even cost Ukraine very much to formally suspend or withdraw its bid for NATO membership, allowing Russian state media to crow about Ukraine's capitulation while never mentioning that Ukraine actually got most of what it wanted.

If, at the end of the day, Putin would stand by as Ukraine seals a deal with the West that's separate from NATO but grants all the same protections as NATO membership would, then certainly that's a tedious request for Ukraine to have to accommodate. But three and a half years of war have also been quite tedious, and for Ukraine, some headaches of paperwork might be a price worth paying. This approach would represent a triumph of substance over form, prioritizing actual security over symbolic membership.

Outstanding Issues and Complications

There are still some outstanding issues that don't yet seem as if they've been accounted for. On Sunday, ahead of the talks in Washington, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed Ukraine's need for a strong army of its own in a post-war Europe, in reference to the likelihood of Russia attempting to impose constraints on Ukraine's future military. While Putin's apparent openness to European deployments in Ukraine would suggest that Ukraine's rearmament might be an area of compromise, it could also be an attempt by Putin to force Ukraine to downsize its military and accept European protection instead—possibly in hopes that Russia could then divide Kyiv from its European allies in the future.

This question of Ukraine's military capabilities represents a critical long-term security concern. If Ukraine is forced to significantly reduce its armed forces as part of a peace agreement, it would become dependent on external guarantors for its security, potentially creating vulnerability if those guarantors' commitments waver over time. Conversely, if Ukraine maintains a robust military capability, Russia may view this as a continuing threat and be less willing to agree to peace terms. Finding the right balance will be essential to creating a sustainable peace agreement.

The Ceasefire Debate

Most important of all, judging by recent rhetoric from Ukraine, is Kyiv's insistence that Russia agree to a temporary ceasefire before peace negotiations begin. This is a stance that Russia has refused to agree to, and a couple of days ago, it was a stance that Trump openly dismissed. As of Monday's negotiations, this ceasefire-before-negotiations position remains a divisive issue, with Ukraine and its European partners holding firm to the idea that a ceasefire should come into effect before any further peace negotiations, with Trump again dismissing a ceasefire as an unnecessary prerequisite for talks to end the war.

However, with all nations now in agreement that it's time for a three-way meeting that would bring Putin and Zelenskyy face-to-face, the question of a ceasefire may be put aside in favor of leveraging the opportunity for a peace summit before it can vanish again in the near future. The urgency of seizing the diplomatic moment may override the procedural question of whether fighting stops before or during negotiations.

Changing Battlefield Dynamics

The situation on the Ukrainian battlefield today isn't the same as it was when the summit was about to begin. Last week, Russia was making headlines after its forces pushed past the front lines near the embattled town of Pokrovsk, in what seemed to be a major change in battlefield momentum. Now, however, elite Ukrainian units appear to have taken charge and neutralized that Russian threat, while in the north, Ukraine claims that the Russian advance near Sumy has been blunted as well.

Under those conditions, with less battlefield momentum and a looming Ukrainian winter, Russia may be more open to the idea of a temporary pause. Alternatively, in practice, the Ukrainian military might not feel as strongly about insisting that a pause takes effect. A temporary ceasefire would save many lives on both sides and should absolutely be a consideration, but if it doesn't happen, then the implications for Ukraine aren't so dire anymore. The stabilization of the front lines gives Ukraine more negotiating leverage and reduces the urgency of stopping the fighting immediately, even as it makes the prospect of a frozen conflict more feasible.

The Risk of Russian Deception

There's a strong possibility that Putin is simply baiting the US and Ukraine, leading on its Western adversaries in order to buy time or work through some larger plan that Putin believes will grant him an advantage. Alternatively, if they do begin, peace talks could simply stall and collapse, or any number of Russia's apparent concessions could turn out to be part of a convoluted plan to benefit Russia in the long run. This would mirror Russia's prior conduct in advance of its full-scale Ukraine invasion in 2022.

Russia has a documented history of using diplomatic negotiations as cover for military preparations or as a means of dividing Western coalitions. The apparent concessions Putin is making could be designed to create false hope, encourage Ukraine to lower its guard, or drive wedges between Ukraine and its European and American partners. The international community must approach these negotiations with clear eyes about Russia's track record while remaining open to the possibility that Putin has genuinely concluded that continuing the war no longer serves Russian interests. Verification mechanisms, clear timelines, and consequences for bad faith negotiating will be essential to any successful peace process.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What happened at the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin?

The Alaska summit initially appeared inconclusive with no clear details released. However, over the following weekend, revelations emerged that Putin had softened Russia's territorial demands, expressing willingness to accept control over Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and freeze front lines elsewhere, rather than insisting on complete control of all four previously claimed Ukrainian regions. Putin also reportedly agreed to allow the US and European nations to offer Ukraine security guarantees.

How has Zelenskyy's negotiating position changed?

In a press conference in Brussels, Zelenskyy changed his position for the first time, stating 'We need real negotiations, which means we can start where the front line is now.' Previously, he had maintained that Ukraine's constitution prevented him from ceding territory and insisted on full return of all occupied lands including Crimea. This shift represents willingness to begin negotiations from current front line positions with support from European allies.

What security guarantees has Putin allegedly agreed to for Ukraine?

According to Trump's negotiating envoy Steve Witkoff, Putin agreed that the United States and European nations could offer Ukraine a security guarantee, essentially pledging to defend Ukraine's sovereignty against future Russian invasion. This would provide NATO-style protection without formal NATO membership, allowing Putin to claim he kept Ukraine out of NATO while Ukraine receives substantive security protections. The arrangement would likely allow European troops to deploy to Ukraine as part of a coalition.

What territorial compromises are being discussed?

Russia's reported position is accepting a frozen front line except for full control of Donetsk Oblast (mostly already controlled by Russia) and Luhansk Oblast (already fully controlled by Russia). Potential exchanges could involve Russia returning border territory near Sumy, pockets in Kharkiv Oblast, and zones along the Luhansk border in exchange for Ukrainian acceptance of Russian control over all of Donetsk Oblast.

What is the dispute over ceasefire timing?

Ukraine and its European partners insist that Russia agree to a temporary ceasefire before peace negotiations begin. Russia has refused this condition, and Trump has dismissed it as an unnecessary prerequisite. However, with recent Ukrainian battlefield successes stabilizing front lines near Pokrovsk and Sumy, the urgency of this demand may have decreased, and the issue may be set aside to allow a three-way summit between Putin, Zelenskyy, and mediators to proceed.

How would Ukraine's NATO membership question be resolved?

The proposal separates formal NATO membership from NATO-style security guarantees. Ukraine would receive collective security agreements with the US and Europe providing similar protections to NATO membership, while formally suspending or withdrawing its NATO membership bid. This allows Putin to claim victory by keeping Ukraine out of NATO while Ukraine receives substantive security protections through bilateral and multilateral agreements with NATO member nations.

What are the main outstanding issues in negotiations?

Key unresolved issues include: Ukraine's insistence on a temporary ceasefire before negotiations begin; potential Russian constraints on Ukraine's future military capabilities and army size; the question of whether European deployments would supplement or replace Ukrainian military strength; and the fundamental uncertainty about whether Russia's concessions represent genuine compromise or strategic deception to buy time or divide Western allies.

What happened at the Washington summit?

On August 18th, Zelenskyy, NATO leaders, and several European leaders met with Trump at the White House. Despite Russian attacks on Ukrainian population centers that day, all parties agreed to engage Russia in direct negotiations as soon as possible. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated 'If we play this well, we could end this. And we have to end it.' Public statements indicated optimism, though details from closed-door meetings had not been disclosed.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →