The push for a U.S.-brokered peace settlement in Ukraine has sputtered out, stalled by Russia’s uncompromising demands, which diplomats fear would result in an “unjust peace” and an act of “appeasement” that rewards aggression. Recent high-stakes talks between U.S. envoys (Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner) and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow produced no breakthrough, with Putin reportedly unwilling to concede on core demands regarding territory and Ukraine’s future military status.
We spoke to three former diplomats, who agree that until battlefield pressure is applied and Moscow alters its demands from capitulation to compromise, the diplomatic process, even with a refined 19-point plan, will remain a framework for discord rather than a path to peace.
“Real Peace, Not Appeasement”
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that Europe had “too many unfair peace deals in the past,” underscoring Kyiv’s rejection of any settlement that sacrifices its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed to Fox News on December 2 that Russian President Putin’s “actual mentality” is a theory of victory based on outlasting the West in a war of attrition, highlighting the maximalist nature of Russia’s negotiating position.
The diplomats’ warnings materialized with a significant leak that highlighted deep distrust in the U.S. approach:
The French President and German Chancellor have expressed skepticism about the direction that U.S. efforts to negotiate a peace between Ukraine and Russia are taking, as German magazine Spiegel reported in a transcript of a confidential call on December 4.
Viability of Peace and Russian Obstruction
The diplomats told Moambe in Washington, D.C., and agreed that a genuine peace is not imminent because Russia’s demands are maximalist and based on a conviction of military victory.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer, who is now with the Brookings Institution, a think tank, told us the Russians and Ukrainians “remain far apart on terms for ending the war.” He thinks a significant part of the problem is that “Putin believes he can achieve his goals on the battlefield.” Added Pifer, “There has been no meaningful change in Russia’s negotiating demands, which amount to Ukraine’s capitulation.”
Donald Jensen, a former US diplomat and currently adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, told us it ” is a good thing in principle that the two sides are talking (even if indirectly)” while confirming that they remain far from agreement “on key issues” and such agreements are unlikely to be forthcoming anytime soon. “The sides have drastically different goals and do not even agree on what a negotiation process is supposed to achieve,” Jensen thinks.
Richard Kauzlarich, former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, who is currently with the Center for Energy Science and Policy, says a plan acceptable to Ukraine must include “respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty AND territorial integrity. This must be more than a ‘business’ deal for the benefit of external financial interests.”
Role of the Battlefield and Pressure
The experts link the lack of diplomatic results directly to the military situation and Russia’s need to be stopped by force.
Pifer argues that Putin “continues to believe he can achieve his goals on the battlefield.” Unless that changes, and Moscow “becomes serious about finding an agreement based on compromise, the negotiations will fail.”
Jensen doubts that the thesis of Russia’s victory, which has been voiced quite often recently, is true. “Both sides have serious weaknesses and vulnerabilities,” he says, “This means that it is critical that Europe step up to make sure that Ukraine can defend itself. Russia will stop when it is stopped.”
Kauzlarich thinks the US can do more on sanctions. “First, implement the sanctions it said it would apply. This has yet to happen. Second, support our allies in the EU to confiscate the frozen Russian assets under EU financial control.”
European Role and Transatlantic Unity
All three diplomats criticize Europe’s exclusion from the U.S.-led talks, viewing it as detrimental to European security and the transatlantic alliance.
“Europe should be involved, because the outcome of any negotiations will almost certainly affect Europe’s security,” tells Pifer, pointing out that since the Trump administration wants Europeans to play a major role in implementing the accords, ” Washington should be more closely engaging the Europeans.” He says the Europeans, for their part, could do more to strengthen their case for a seat at the table, beginning with finalizing and implementing their plan to use frozen Russian Central Bank assets to back loans for Ukraine.”
“As the war is as much about European security as Ukraine’s future, the Europeans will have to be involved in any settlement,” agrees Jensen. “The Kremlin is very good at exploiting these cleavages, which undermines Western unity. All of this stress on the Atlantic Alliance is likely to weaken it going forward.”
Kauzlarich believes that whatever the Trump administration’s objective in these negotiations may be, “European partners will be necessary to ensure that Ukraine’s interests are represented in any final agreement.”
U.S. Leadership and Diplomatic Process
Experts address whether the US should be in the driving seat of the negotiation process, as well as the nature of the Trump administration’s engagement.
Pifer believes, “it is less a question of how the negotiating process is structured than it is of the willingness of the Ukrainians and Russians to negotiate in a serious way.” But he agrees that “Putin uses phone calls with Trump and meetings with Witkoff to string along the American president.”
“I am an Atlanticist, and I think the US should lead it and play a key role in reaching a just peace in Ukraine, and play a central role in European affairs,” says Jensen. “But whether the US is becoming more isolationist… There is no assurance that the next President would want to go back to the way it was before February 2022.”
