Trump Hails ‘Big Progress’ After Controversial Ukraine Peace Talks End in Washington
Trump Calls Ukraine–US Peace Talks ‘Big Progress’ as Critics Warn Plan May Favour Russia
Peace talks in Washington between the United States and Ukraine over a 28-point peace plan widely described by analysts as favourable to Russia have concluded, with former US President Donald Trump expressing optimism and calling the outcome “big progress,” even as Ukrainian officials, members of the Biden administration and European allies offer mixed assessments of what was achieved and how it could reshape the war in Ukraine.
Published: | By Staff Reporter
What We Know About the 28‑Point Peace Plan
According to diplomatic sources and reporting from outlets including The New York Times and BBC News, US and Ukrainian negotiators met in Washington over several days to discuss a 28‑point framework aimed at ending or freezing large-scale fighting in Ukraine. While the full document has not been released publicly, officials familiar with the talks say the plan touches on ceasefire arrangements, territorial control, security guarantees, sanctions relief and future relations between Kyiv, Moscow and NATO.
Analysts who have reviewed summaries of the proposal say several provisions appear to align more closely with Russian interests than with Ukraine’s long-stated objectives, particularly on territorial concessions, limits on future NATO expansion and the timing of possible sanctions relief. Ukrainian representatives have not publicly endorsed the document as a final peace agreement, describing it instead as an evolving framework for further negotiations.
- Ceasefire lines and control of occupied territories remain the most contentious issues.
- Security guarantees from Western states are central to Ukraine’s concerns.
- Russia, which was not present at the Washington talks, has signalled interest in plans that recognise “new territorial realities,” a phrase Western officials interpret as Moscow seeking recognition of occupied regions.
Trump’s Optimistic Tone and Political Calculations
Speaking to supporters and in comments relayed by US media, Donald Trump praised the talks as “big progress” toward what he has repeatedly described as a quick end to the war. While Trump is not currently in office, his views carry significant political weight ahead of the 2026 US midterm elections and amid ongoing debate over American military and financial support to Ukraine.
Trump has long argued that he could broker a rapid peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, though he has offered few concrete details about how such an outcome would balance Ukraine’s sovereignty with Russia’s demands. In past statements, he has suggested that continued US aid should be conditioned on pushing both sides to the negotiating table, a position that resonates with some Republican lawmakers who are wary of large foreign aid packages.
“What we’re seeing now is momentum toward a deal that stops the killing,” a Trump ally in Congress said in an interview with a US cable network, while adding that “any durable peace will require difficult compromises from everyone involved.”
Cautious Response From Kyiv
Ukrainian officials have publicly welcomed diplomatic engagement but insist that any peace plan must safeguard the country’s territorial integrity and long-term security. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that Ukraine cannot accept a settlement that legitimises Russia’s occupation of large parts of its territory.
In recent comments reported by Reuters, a senior Ukrainian diplomat said the Washington talks were “constructive” but stressed that “there is no agreement until we have clear guarantees that another invasion will not be possible.” The diplomat added that Ukraine’s position remains guided by international law, including the UN Charter’s principles on sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- Kyiv insists on the withdrawal of Russian forces from internationally recognised Ukrainian territory as a long-term goal.
- Officials seek binding security guarantees from the US and European allies.
- Ukraine continues to push for accountability for alleged war crimes and reparations for war damage.
Biden Administration Walks a Tightrope
The Biden administration has publicly maintained that “nothing about Ukraine will be decided without Ukraine,” emphasising that Kyiv must lead on any peace terms. US officials, speaking on background to multiple outlets, describe the 28‑point plan less as a final blueprint and more as a menu of options and scenarios that could be refined if direct negotiations with Russia resume.
Domestically, the White House faces competing pressures: a segment of Congress wants to reduce or more tightly condition US aid, while others warn that easing support or pressing Ukraine toward concessions could embolden Russia and unsettle NATO allies. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has framed the US goal as helping Ukraine achieve “a just and durable peace,” language that implies both a halt to fighting and safeguards against renewed aggression.
International and Expert Reactions
Reaction from Europe and beyond has been measured. Several NATO governments, particularly in Eastern Europe, caution against any settlement that could be perceived as rewarding Russia for military gains. Poland, the Baltic states and some Nordic countries have argued that a premature ceasefire without firm security guarantees might simply allow Moscow to regroup and renew attacks later.
Western European capitals, including Berlin and Paris, generally support diplomatic initiatives but reiterate that talks must not undermine Ukraine’s negotiating position. International organisations such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe (OSCE) continue to call for respect for international law, protection of civilians and unhindered humanitarian access.
Experts are divided on the 28‑point proposal. Some conflict-resolution specialists argue that even an imperfect ceasefire could save lives and create space for longer-term agreements. Others warn that a deal perceived as heavily skewed toward Russia could prove fragile and politically untenable inside Ukraine.
“Any peace that does not address the underlying security concerns and the question of justice for victims is unlikely to last,” said an analyst at a European think tank, speaking to The Financial Times.
Background: From Invasion to Negotiation Attempts
Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, following its 2014 annexation of Crimea and long-running tensions over Ukraine’s orientation toward the European Union and NATO. The conflict has since become the largest land war in Europe in decades, causing tens of thousands of deaths, displacing millions and reshaping global energy and food markets.
Early efforts at diplomacy, including talks in Belarus and Turkey in 2022, stalled amid disagreement over territory and security guarantees. Subsequent initiatives by countries such as Turkey, Israel, and, more recently, China, have produced limited progress. A series of Ukrainian-backed peace summits, most recently hosted by Switzerland, have sought to build international consensus around principles such as territorial integrity and accountability.
The latest Washington talks differ in that they focus on a detailed, point‑by‑point framework, though they still lack Russia’s direct participation. Whether the 28‑point plan becomes the basis for future negotiations may depend on battlefield developments, domestic politics in key capitals and the willingness of all parties to compromise.
Outlook: Peace Prospects and Unanswered Questions
With the latest round of US–Ukraine peace talks concluded, attention now turns to how Kyiv, Washington, Moscow and key European capitals respond to the 28‑point framework. Trump’s upbeat assessment underscores the growing role of US domestic politics in shaping discussion of the war, while the Biden administration continues to balance support for Ukraine with calls for a negotiated end to the conflict.
Many of the most difficult issues—particularly control of territory, long-term security guarantees and accountability for wartime abuses—remain unresolved. Whether the current plan becomes a stepping stone toward a broader settlement or another stalled initiative will depend on developments both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table in the months ahead.
