What each side wants from a peace deal

The future of Ukraine is the focus of the Munich Security Conference (MSc), only a few days after the shocking phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which they agreed to start negotiations on the end of Ukraine’s war.

Describing the call earlier this week as “great”, Trump stated that “a good opportunity to stop this horrible, very bloody war.”

The President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky warned that his country should not be left without peace talks.

European allies seemed surprised by the nature of the call when French President Emmanuel Macron warned that any peace agreement that provided for Russia’s surrender would end “bad for everyone.”

It is still unclear when peace talks may begin, but if they are dealing with the territory, NATO’s security negotiations and the future of Ukraine will be one of the key topics. That’s where different sides stand.

Currently, Moscow controls the fifth part of Ukraine, mainly in the south and east.

After the overthrow of the pro -Russian President of Ukraine in 2014, Russia joined the Black Sea Peninsula and supported pro -Russian separatists in bloody battles in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Then the conflict invaded the comprehensive war almost three years ago after a complete invasion of Russia.

Moscow’s attempts to use the capital of Kyiv have been thwarted, but the Russian forces have since slowly expanded its territorial control, mostly in the east.

Ukrainian troops supported by weapons and equipment from US and European allies have made these achievements as difficult as possible and were sometimes able to return the territory, as well as become counter-registration of Western Russia.

Ukraine has always insisted that any peaceful transaction should include the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine back to the borders by 2014, including Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.

“We never recognize the occupied territories as Russians,” Zelensky said at a press conference during the MSc.

On the other hand, Russia has officially annexed four regions of eastern and southern Ukraine and wants them to be recognized as part of Russia – despite the fact that they do not control the entire territory in these regions.

In an interview with the guardianZelensky suggested that the Russian territory in Ukraine could be replaced by Ukraine in the Russian western region of Kursk as part of a peaceful transaction. However, the Kremlin switched off this.

Until recently Western allies of Ukraine stood under the position of Zelensky that all Ukraine, including Crimea, must be returned.

But the new US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegset, poured cold water on these hopes, saying at the summit in February that the achievement by 2014 is an unreal goal.

“The pursuit of this illusory purpose will only extend the war and lead to greater suffering,” he said.

Ukraine wants to join NATO, claiming that the Western Military Alliance – in which the participants promise to defend themselves with each other when attacking it is the best way to ensure its safety.

For Kiev, a full-scale invasion of Russia is proof that only NATO membership can guarantee its safety.

However, Russia has consistently opposed Ukraine’s idea to become a member, fearing that it will lead to NATO’s forces too close to its borders.

When he arrived at the MSc, Zelensky said that Ukraine trusted NATO security guarantees before adding that membership would be “the cheapest option for everyone.”

Europe must unite around Ukraine to protect itself, he added.

NATO members invariably claim that Ukraine should become a NATO member in the future, and British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the country is going on a “irreversible way” to friendship.

But these guarantees now look less firm after the US Secretary of Defense has lowered the likelihood of NATO membership for Ukraine in any peaceful settlement.

“The United States does not believe that NATO membership in Ukraine is a realistic result of the negotiation settlement,” said Gegset.

Zelensky stated that previous discussions with US President Donald Trump “exactly insufficient to create a plan” for peace.

Speaking when he arrived at the MSc, he said the signals coming from the US were “strong” but “diverse”.

Hegset claimed that Trump was a “one person in the world” capable of unite both sides, and insisted that attempts to agree on peace were “certainly a betrayal” of Ukrainian soldiers fighting Russian forces.

Meanwhile, the US Vice President said the sending of troops to Ukraine is still “still on the table” if Russia is not able to agree on a peaceful agreement in good faith.

“The president is not included with the blind,” JD Vance said said the Wall Street Journal magazine.

Back in October Zelensky outlined his Victory Plan in the Parliament of UkraineWhich included key points such as NATO membership, joint US and EU -EU -Critical Resources, as well as the content of Russia through non -nuclear strategic containment of the package deployed on Ukrainian soil.

At the time, US President Joe Biden was given a briefing on this plan – as well as presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

It is unclear whether some Zelensky plans will be transferred to peace talks, but the Hesget warned that there would be no US troops on the ground in any future security agreement.

Zelensky told The Guardian that he did not believe that the US security guarantees would work.

Cited sources of defense of the UK In the newspaper The Times claim that the US can provide some form of air defense – Patriot rockets may – To the peacekeeping force in Ukraine in return for access to minerals.