A recent report by Polish media outlet Onet has revealed the contents of a ceasefire proposal presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin by Steve Witkoff, the personal envoy of U.S. President Donald Trump.
The proposal, reportedly developed in coordination with certain European governments, outlines a temporary halt in hostilities in Ukraine, offering Moscow significant concessions while leaving the core issues of the war unresolved.
According to Onet, the American initiative includes a ceasefire in Ukraine (distinct from a formal peace agreement), the effective recognition of Russian territorial gains through a 49- or 99-year postponement of their status, the removal of most sanctions imposed on Russia since 2022, and a phased return to energy cooperation, specifically gas and oil trade.
The proposal does not include restrictions on NATO enlargement or an end to military aid to Ukraine—two issues Moscow has consistently raised. Notably, Onet reports that Russia appears willing to accept the continuation of Western arms supplies under the proposed framework.
This development has triggered immediate debate, not least because the very nature of the proposal invites confusion. In an environment saturated with disinformation and rapidly shifting narratives, each headline is swiftly contradicted by another. The volume of competing information creates an illusion of momentum and change—yet when examined closely, the direction remains consistent with the reality established since February 2022: a drawn-out war with no resolution in sight.
The Illusion of a Turning Point
The release of Onet’s report has led to speculation that a shift in diplomatic strategy may be under way. However, closer examination of the proposal suggests continuity rather than deviation. The war’s legal, political, and territorial foundations remain unchanged. Ukraine and Russia both define the contested territories—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea—as integral parts of their respective states. These positions are enshrined in their constitutions and are not open to reinterpretation or deferral without triggering constitutional crises.
The suggestion to defer the status of occupied territories for 49 or 99 years is, in effect, an attempt to freeze the conflict. Yet such an approach is implausible in practical terms. Russia’s constitution formalises the annexation of the territories as federal subjects. No Russian official could legally consent to an arrangement implying that their status remains unresolved. Any move in that direction could result in criminal liability under Russian law. Thus, the reported proposal is incompatible with both the Russian legal system and the political narrative maintained by the Kremlin.
Similarly, Ukraine cannot accept a formula that implies a long-term ambiguity over its internationally recognised borders. The constitutional and political structures of the Ukrainian state are built upon the premise of full territorial integrity. Any attempt to postpone discussion of sovereignty—even under international guarantees—would be seen domestically as a concession and externally as a precedent with broader implications for international law.
Putin’s Diplomatic Preferences
Another critical obstacle lies in the diplomatic structure envisaged by the Trump administration. According to post-meeting reports, Trump intends to host a trilateral summit involving himself, Putin, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
From the perspective of the Kremlin, however, this format is fundamentally flawed. Putin does not view Zelenskyy as a legitimate counterpart. For Moscow, Ukraine remains a subordinate entity in a larger geopolitical contest. Putin prefers direct negotiations with figures he considers peers—chief among them, Trump.
This imbalance of perception presents a structural diplomatic impasse. Trump, seeking to reprise his role as a global broker, may envision a scenario akin to his planned mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But from Putin’s viewpoint, equating Russia with former Soviet republics such as Ukraine or Armenia is unacceptable. He seeks recognition as a leader of a global power, not a participant in regional disputes.
Strategic Implications and Limitations
The economic elements of the proposal are also difficult to reconcile with recent developments. Trump, during his first term, was an active critic of European energy dependence on Russia, pressing EU states to purchase American LNG and abandon Nord Stream 2. Only recently did he reportedly convince European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to halt all energy cooperation with Moscow. Reversing this policy to permit renewed energy imports would not only be inconsistent with prior positions but also risk undermining current transatlantic trade arrangements.
The reported package also presumes a willingness by Russia to accept economic and military asymmetries for diplomatic gains. While the Kremlin may view a ceasefire as an opportunity to consolidate territorial control, protect its infrastructure from growing Ukrainian strike capabilities, and secure economic relief, it is unclear whether it would accept these conditions without firm security concessions, such as guarantees on NATO non-expansion—concessions which the Onet report explicitly confirms are not included.
A Conflict Beyond Personalities
The broader question is whether any American president can realistically bring the war to an end through diplomacy alone. Trump, like his predecessors, lacks the leverage to alter Russia’s long-term objectives. Any pressure he could exert would likely be limited to short-term diplomatic gains. Putin values recognition and parity; any interaction that elevates his international status—such as a summit with the U.S. President—is a victory in itself.
In strategic terms, even if the current proposal were to result in a temporary suspension of hostilities, the core dynamics of the conflict would remain unchanged. Russia’s broader geopolitical ambition—the restoration of its influence in the post-Soviet space and beyond—will not be moderated by the outcome of a single diplomatic round.
Moreover, as long as Russia continues to operate under the ideology of the so-called “chekist regime”—a security state rooted in Soviet-era intelligence structures—the long-term threat to Ukraine and Eastern Europe remains intact. Even without Putin, the system is designed to pursue dominance, fuelled by propaganda, authoritarian control and corruption. Internal instability, driven by economic inequality and ethnic fragmentation, may emerge in the future, but for now, Russia’s state apparatus remains resilient.
Strategic Mirage or Tactical Pause?
The reported Trump proposal may indicate a tactical recalibration in the management of the conflict, but it does not amount to a strategic shift. Fundamentally, the war remains rooted in a confrontation between two irreconcilable state models—each bound to territorial claims it cannot renounce without risking systemic unraveling.
A temporary ceasefire could reduce immediate battlefield casualties and facilitate limited humanitarian access. Yet absent verifiable guarantees and enforceable legal frameworks addressing the core origins of the conflict, such a pause risks serving merely as an interval before renewed hostilities.
Between diplomatic illusions and military stalemate, Ukraine’s future remains tied not to symbolic summits or temporary truces, but to the continued support of its allies, the resilience of its institutions, and a long-term strategy to coexist with a hostile nuclear neighbour for decades to come.
