- Ukraine has said it is prepared to abandon its pursuit of NATO membership, but only if it gets stronger Western security guarantees in exchange
- Moscow has said the deployment of foreign troops is a ‘subject for discussion,’ but insists that territorial ‘realities on the ground’ must be recognized in any peace settlement
ISTANBUL
As diplomatic contacts intensify over a possible framework to end the nearly four-year Russia-Ukraine war, Kyiv and Moscow continue to hold sharply diverging positions on key issues such as security guarantees and territorial control.
Since November, a series of US-mediated talks have focused on a peace framework to end the war, with consultations held in Switzerland and the US. The latest round of talks was in Miami over the weekend, where American officials held separate meetings with Russian and Ukrainian delegations.
Early discussions were centered on a draft 28-point proposal, which reportedly required Ukraine to make significant concessions, including recognizing Russian control over certain territories, limiting its military personnel, and agreeing not to join NATO.
The initial proposal has since been revised following intensive negotiations among Ukrainian, European and American officials, while US officials have also held separate talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
While the exact details of the document have yet to be made public, Moscow and Kyiv have been vocal on their positions concerning its various aspects under discussion.
Security guarantees, demilitarization, NATO membership
Ukraine’s stance
One of the biggest shifts in recent weeks came from Kyiv, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying he is prepared to abandon the pursuit of NATO membership in exchange for stronger Western security guarantees.
He described the pursuit of security guarantees as a “compromise” on Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO, an objective enshrined in the country’s Constitution in 2019.
“These security guarantees are an opportunity for us to prevent another wave of Russian aggression. And this is already a compromise on our part,” Zelenskyy said.
He has underlined that Ukraine originally sought NATO membership because it offered “real security guarantees,” but said Kyiv has shifted its focus toward legally binding commitments, stressing the “essential” need for NATO’s Article 5-like mutual defense clause.
“These should be strong security guarantees, not like Budapest or Minsk,” Zelenskyy said, referring to past agreements that failed to prevent war.
Ukraine has also opposed security models involving demilitarized zones or foreign-controlled buffer areas, citing concerns over enforcement and renewed infiltration.
“This is definitely not in the interests of Ukraine, but we need to continue the conversation,” Zelenskyy said.
Overall, Kyiv maintains that peace without robust guarantees would only postpone a new phase of the conflict.
Russia’s position
Russia maintains firm opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, defining it as a direct threat to its national security and one of the core causes of the conflict.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO is a key issue that requires “special consideration” within any peace settlement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that Ukraine joining the alliance would fundamentally alter the regional security balance.
Putin clarified at an annual end-of-year press conference on Friday that Moscow respects other countries’ rights to self-defense but insists it must not threaten Russia's security.
“We are not saying that any country does not have the right to choose a way to protect itself, but it should be a way that does not threaten anyone, including us,” he said.
Russia has also voiced skepticism toward Western-backed security guarantees for Ukraine, particularly those involving foreign military deployments or multinational forces on Ukrainian territory.
However, while commenting on proposals for a European-led force last week, Peskov said the issue of deploying foreign troops was “a subject for discussion,” but declined to elaborate.
Russian officials have insisted that they seek a comprehensive and legally binding security arrangement that goes beyond Ukraine.
Territorial concessions and control
Ukraine’s stance
Ukraine has described territorial issues as the most critical and politically sensitive element of the peace talks, insisting that its sovereignty and internationally recognized borders must be respected.
“The question of territory is an extremely painful issue for us,” Zelenskyy said after talks in Berlin, emphasizing that Kyiv’s position is “very clear” and must be respected.
Zelenskyy has acknowledged that Russia has territorial demands but said Ukraine has consistently conveyed its own position during negotiations.
“I’m well aware of what the Russian demands are,” he said. “I merely communicated to the special envoys what our point of view is.”
Kyiv has rejected demands for Ukrainian troop withdrawal from Donbas as unfair, arguing that such steps would “reward aggression” and undermine the prospects for lasting peace.
Zelenskyy has suggested that a ceasefire along the current front line could be a “fair and realistic option,” while stressing that this does not amount to recognizing Russian control over occupied areas.
To a question on possible territorial referendums, he said: “I believe the people of Ukraine will answer this question – in the format of elections or in the format of a referendum,” Zelenskyy said.
Kyiv has expressed deep concern over ideas involving demilitarized or “free economic” zones in contested regions, citing unresolved questions over administration, monitoring and security.
Ukrainian officials say there is no clarity on who would control such zones, how compliance would be enforced, or how renewed Russian infiltration would be prevented.
Highlighting these complexities, Zelenskyy dismissed a US proposal to divide control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant between Ukraine, the US, and Russia, calling it “unfair.”
He has identified the plant’s status, alongside territorial integrity and reconstruction funds, as the “most difficult issues” remaining in the negotiations.
Zelenskyy has also linked territorial discussions to the issue of accountability and compensation, insisting that any agreement must address war-related damage and losses.
Russia’s position
Russia insists that territorial “realities on the ground” must be recognized in any peace settlement, framing its claims as legally enshrined in domestic law.
Presidential aide Yury Ushakov has said Moscow may fundamentally disagree with territorial elements of adjusted peace proposals, reiterating Russia’s position on Donbas.
“Donbas is Russian. The entire Donbas is Russian as stipulated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” Ushakov said.
The Kremlin has rejected the idea of ceasefires designed to facilitate territorial referendums, calling them deceptive and counterproductive.
“A ceasefire is a respite, another deception, another delay,” Peskov said, adding that Moscow will not accept pauses that allow Ukraine to regroup.
Russian officials argue that any temporary halt in fighting without a final settlement would “camouflage a desire to continue violence,” a phrase echoed by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
“All the talk about some kind of elements of a ceasefire… is of no use to anyone,” she said.
Russia has also criticized Kyiv’s insistence on popular decision-making over territory, arguing that the issue has already been resolved through constitutional changes following annexation claims.
Moscow maintains that it seeks a definitive settlement that secures its territorial gains and prevents what it describes as future threats emanating from Ukraine.
At the same time, Russian officials have warned that they may not accept significant portions of peace proposals once formally presented, particularly those touching on territory and military arrangements.
“We haven’t seen the corrected versions of American proposals. When we do, there may be many things we won’t like,” Ushakov said, signaling continued resistance.
