Zelensky on the peace plan: what 5 signals did Ukraine receive from the US

When Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke to journalists after days of talks with the United States, his words conveyed a rare combination of fatigue and cautious hope in wartime: for the first time in a long time, Kyiv is talking not only about how to survive another winter, but also about what a just peace could look like — without capitulation and without repeating the mistakes of Minsk.¹

What was agreed upon: a framework for a possible peace

The BBC article states that during the meetings in the US, the Ukrainian delegation focused on a shared vision for a future peace plan that would end Russia's full-scale aggression without fixing its gains on the battlefield.¹ After the negotiations, Zelenskyy stated that the parties had achieved "some progress" and agreed on basic approaches to what peace should be like so that it would be accepted by Ukrainian society, which has already paid too high a price for the right to exist as an independent state.¹

According to leading Western media, this is not a finished text of the agreement, but rather general principles that include the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, security guarantees, and mechanisms for holding Russia accountable for its crimes.² Washington, according to the same estimates, is seeking to find a formula that will simultaneously strengthen support for Kyiv and reduce the risks of direct escalation from Moscow, in particular nuclear blackmail, which has repeatedly been voiced by the Kremlin in recent years.³

Five key signals from Washington

The first and perhaps main signal is the public recognition by the US that no peace plan can be imposed on Ukraine "from above" without its consent, and "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" remains a fundamental principle.¹ This is important against the backdrop of Ukrainian fears that the West's fatigue from a protracted war may push some elites to seek a "quick peace" at the cost of concessions in territory or sovereignty, as has already happened in the history of other conflicts.³

The second signal is confirmation of long-term support for Ukraine's defense capabilities, including armament, military training, and integration into Western standards of command and logistics.² The third is the willingness to discuss specific models of security guarantees that would work even in the event of changes in the domestic political situation in the US or Europe, which is no less important for Kyiv than the current aid packages.³

The fourth signal concerns economic reconstruction: the American side has made it clear that it sees Ukraine in the future not as a "gray zone" between blocs, but as a state integrated into Western markets, capable of independently ensuring its stability.² Fifth, intensify US diplomatic efforts to involve countries of the Global South in discussing the Ukrainian peace formula in order to prevent the dominance of Russian narratives in these regions.³

Ukrainian peace formula: what remains unchanged

Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized that the basis for any discussion should be the Ukrainian "peace formula," which includes, among other things, the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, the restoration of control over the border, the release of all prisoners and deportees, and the establishment of a tribunal for war criminals.¹ Despite the harsh realities of the front, Kyiv does not give up on these demands, believing that any "amnesty for aggression" will only postpone the next war and turn Ukraine into a buffer zone between Russia and the West.⁴

In this sense, the progress the president is talking about is more about how much the American side is ready to build its policy based on the Ukrainian vision, rather than the other way around.² Sources in Western diplomatic circles note that over the past year, the understanding has strengthened in Washington: attempts to "balance" Ukraine's demands and the Kremlin's appetites only encourage Russia to engage in new blackmail and destroy trust in the international security system built after World War II.³

The Shadow of Minsk: Why Ukraine Fears a “Bad Peace”

Over any talk of peace, the specter of the Minsk agreements looms, which were supposed to stop the war in Donbas after 2014, but ultimately became a cover for Russia to regroup and prepare for a new, much larger invasion.⁴ Ukrainian society remembers well how the promised "peace at any cost" turned into years of positional battles, constant shelling of frontline villages, and political blackmail over the so-called "special status" of the occupied territories.⁴

That is why today the word "compromise" causes more anxiety than relief for many: it is not only about emotions, but also about a rational analysis of how Russia uses any pause in hostilities to strengthen its position.³ For most Ukrainians, only a peace that contains clear legal obligations for the Russian Federation, tied to real levers — from sanctions mechanisms to guarantees of military support in the event of a new attack — seems acceptable.²

The attack on Kremenchuk as a mirror of the negotiations

It is significant that the news about "some progress" in negotiations with the US came almost simultaneously with reports of another massive Russian strike on Kremenchuk, where residents were once again left without electricity, heat, and water.¹ This synchronicity is not accidental: the Kremlin regularly intensifies missile and drone terror precisely against the backdrop of important diplomatic events, trying to send a signal to both Kyiv and the West that it still relies on force, not law.⁵

For Ukrainians, this reality makes any talk of peace "on paper" particularly fragile: trust in the agreements will only be possible when they are backed by a real opportunity to stop such attacks — both by political and military means.⁴ Otherwise, the peace plan risks turning into another diplomatic document that looks nice in the archives but changes nothing for people who spend the night in basements to the wailing of sirens.²

The US between support for Ukraine and internal fatigue

American policy towards Ukraine is currently unfolding against the backdrop of complex domestic dynamics: part of the political spectrum demands increased assistance to Kyiv, while another calls for cutting spending and focusing on domestic problems.³ This debate is not unique: similar discussions have taken place in the United States regarding other protracted conflicts, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, but the Ukrainian case is different in that the outcome directly affects the European security architecture and the credibility of Washington's allied commitments.²

That is why the American administration seeks to combine continued support for Kyiv with demonstrating to voters a clear strategy for exiting the conflict, where "exit" will not mean the defeat of the partner, but on the contrary, consolidating the result in the form of a sustainable peace.³ Negotiations with Zelensky in this context become not only a diplomatic event, but also a signal to its own audience: Ukraine has a vision, and the US is not just "investing money in a war," but is working on a political outcome that will change the balance of power in Europe for generations to come.²

The role of Europe: between solidarity and fear of escalation

Despite the fact that the focus of current news is on Kyiv's interaction with Washington, no realistic peace plan can fully function without the European Union.³ The EU has already become Ukraine's main donor of civilian aid and a key trading partner, and the prospect of membership creates an additional framework for reform and reconstruction, which is critical for post-war resilience.⁴

At the same time, some European capitals are wary of scenarios that could provoke a sharp escalation from Russia, especially against the backdrop of energy risks and hybrid attacks — from cyberattacks to manipulation of migration flows.⁵ Therefore, it is important for Kyiv that the progress that Zelenskyy speaks about after negotiations with the Americans be supported by systematic work with European partners - both at the level of security, the economy, and justice for victims of aggression.²

The Global South and the Battle for Narrative

One of the most difficult areas of the diplomatic front remains work with countries of the Global South, where Russian propaganda actively promotes the image of Russia as an anti-colonial force and presents the war against Ukraine as a confrontation with the West as a whole.³ Against this background, the US and Ukraine are trying to convey a simple but difficult to accept idea: allowing the annexation of territories with impunity and the destruction of international law in Europe creates a dangerous precedent for any region of the world — from Africa to Asia.²

Zelensky has repeatedly appealed to the leaders of these countries to join the implementation of the Ukrainian peace formula, emphasizing that this is not a "European internal affair," but a matter of common security and justice.¹ Negotiations with the US, where an important place is given to the involvement of third countries, could be a step towards a broader conference that would allow the Global South not just to observe, but to actually influence the rules of the game — provided that these rules do not contradict the basic rights of Ukraine itself.³

Security guarantees: what can become an “umbrella” for Ukraine

A separate topic, which diplomatic sources speak about with particular caution, is the format of future security guarantees for Ukraine: whether it will be further movement towards NATO, separate multilateral agreements involving key states, or a combination thereof.² For Kyiv, joining the Alliance remains a strategic goal, but even before achieving it, the country needs a "transitional umbrella" of guarantees that would deter Russia from a new attempt at a strike at a time when the world's attention is weakening.⁴

The United States and a number of European countries have already concluded bilateral security agreements with Ukraine that provide for long-term military and political support, but their practical content will largely depend on how the current phase of the war ends.³ This is where progress in the peace plan negotiations may become decisive: whether it will be strong enough so that the guarantees do not turn into empty declarations, as was the case in the history of the Budapest Memorandum.⁴

Justice and reparations: will peace have a price for the aggressor?

Another stumbling block is the issue of Russia's responsibility: Ukrainian society demands not only a ceasefire, but also punishment of those guilty of war crimes, as well as compensation for the damages caused, which are already estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars.⁴ The United States and a number of European countries are working on mechanisms for using frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine, but this process faces legal and political obstacles, as it is actually an unprecedented solution for the modern financial system.³

In parallel, discussions are ongoing on the possibility of establishing a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, which would complement the International Criminal Court's investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity.² For many Ukrainians, the presence of a real justice mechanism is no less important than the fact of a ceasefire: without punishment, evil is perceived as a temporarily muted, but not tamed, source of new tragedies.⁴

Ukraine between the front and diplomacy

Despite the diplomatic emphasis of recent days, the Ukrainian reality remains frontline: daily reports from the General Staff, losses, rotations, searches for ammunition and equipment — all this creates a context in which any peace plan will be perceived not theoretically, but through the prism of concrete human lives.⁴ For the military, it is important that political agreements do not nullify their efforts and sacrifices; for civilians, it is important that they finally get a chance to build a future without constant fear for their loved ones.²

Zelensky, assessing the results of the negotiations in the United States, is forced to balance between cautious optimism and honest recognition: the path to a just peace is still far, and every step forward may be accompanied by strikes on Kremenchuk, Kharkiv, Odessa, or Kyiv.¹ However, the very emergence of the feeling that Ukraine is not just "holding on" but is shaping a vision of its peaceful future together with key allies becomes an important point of support for a society exhausted but not broken by war.³

Sources

1. BBC News: Ukrainian city hit by 'massive' strike as peace talks in US conclude / Zelensky signals progress in talks with US on peace plan
2. BBC News: analytical materials on the US position on Russia's war against Ukraine and peace initiatives
3. BBC News Ukraine: reviews of Kyiv's diplomatic efforts, the role of the US, the EU and the countries of the Global South
4. BBC News Ukraine: materials on the experience of the Minsk agreements, security guarantees and the Ukrainian peace formula
5. International think tanks and media: assessments of Russian missile and drone attacks as an element of pressure against the backdrop of negotiations