President Zelenskyy’s latest diplomatic tour has highlighted widening gaps between Kyiv, Washington and Moscow over the future of Donbas, as efforts continue to translate a draft peace outline into a workable agreement.
Following a high-profile meeting in London with UK prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy travelled on to Brussels, where he is due to hold further talks with NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte, European Council president António Costa and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen.
According to accounts from participants and officials familiar with the discussions, the central point of contention remains the status of Donbas. Negotiators from the United States are reported to be testing variants of a proposal that would ultimately involve the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions as part of a broader settlement with Russia. Moscow, for its part, is said to be holding to its long-standing demand that Kyiv recognise the occupied territories as Russian and pull back its forces before any deal can be signed.
In an in-flight briefing to Ukrainian and international journalists after the London talks, Zelenskyy described Donbas as the most difficult item on the agenda and stated that there is no consolidated position on this issue among the negotiating parties. He indicated that earlier US drafts of a peace plan ran to 28 points, of which 20 were assessed by Kyiv as problematic. While he characterised Washington’s overall approach as oriented towards compromise, he made clear that the territorial elements, in their present form, are not acceptable to Ukraine.
Ukrainian forces are understood to control roughly 30 per cent of the territory of Donbas, including major population centres such as Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostyantynivka. These areas remain within range of Russian forces and under regular attack. Russian president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly linked further talks to the withdrawal of Ukrainian units from the region and to Ukrainian recognition of Russian sovereignty over the occupied areas. Previous rounds of indirect engagement between US and Russian representatives have not produced a final text, and officials close to the process now describe the talks as being close to deadlock.
Security considerations are shaping not only the substance but also the conduct of the negotiations. Zelenskyy reportedly declined to receive a detailed update from Rustem Umerov, head of the Ukrainian negotiating team, by telephone because of interception risks, and instead waited for an in-person briefing. He has also argued that Kyiv cannot be asked to sign any document until follow-on security, legal and economic arrangements are fully specified, a stance that contrasts with pressure from some partners for faster political decisions.
Alongside the territorial file, long-term security guarantees have emerged as a decisive issue for Kyiv. Zelenskyy has stated that any settlement with Russia would require firm, preferably legally anchored, commitments from the United States and other partners. In his public comments, he has pointed to the possibility of guarantees set out in US legislation, rather than only in executive-branch statements, as the most credible form of assurance. This debate comes against the background of ongoing work in NATO and among G7 states on a framework for long-term security assistance to Ukraine and on mechanisms to ensure predictable support over many years.
Zelenskyy has also referred to a “coalition of the willing” of around 30 countries backing Ukraine’s approach to a just peace, with further contacts this week expected with Italy and Canada. In Rome, disagreements within the governing coalition over additional military support for Ukraine have complicated decision-making. These domestic debates in individual capitals intersect with a wider European discussion about how far to go in committing long-term security, financial and political resources to Kyiv.
A further strand of the Brussels talks is expected to focus on the possible use of frozen Russian sovereign assets. EU institutions and member states have been examining options to channel windfall profits, and potentially principal sums, from immobilised Russian assets towards Ukraine’s reconstruction and defence needs. Proposals on the table include a long-term loan backed by future reparations, funded from income generated by the frozen assets. The issue has become one of the most sensitive legal and political questions in the EU’s Ukraine policy, with differing views among member states over risks to financial stability and international law.
Zelenskyy has indicated that European drafts of security-related guarantees are relatively advanced, but he has also said that he has yet to receive clear answers on how partners would respond if Russia were to renew large-scale aggression after a settlement. He has warned that, in the absence of concrete and enforceable guarantees, any peace agreement would risk being followed by a new attack.
Against this backdrop, the current phase of diplomacy is unlikely to deliver rapid breakthroughs. Fundamental differences remain over territory, sequencing and the nature of security guarantees. While London and Brussels have provided an opportunity to coordinate positions among Ukraine and its European partners, the distance between Kyiv’s insistence on preserving its territorial integrity and Moscow’s conditions for agreement, together with uncertainty over the eventual shape of US commitments, means that a comprehensive settlement on Donbas is not yet in view.
