The United States is projecting strong optimism over the latest round of negotiations aimed at ending Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, but a senior Ukrainian official has revealed that major unresolved issues threaten to derail the emerging agreement. Despite upbeat statements from President Donald Trump and his top diplomats, deep divisions persist over territory, Ukraine’s military structure, and Kyiv’s NATO aspirations — three matters described by Kyiv as absolute red lines.
Over the weekend, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Ukrainian negotiators in Geneva, calling the talks “very positive” and emphasizing that the remaining disagreements were “not insurmountable.” President Trump later amplified that sentiment, celebrating “tremendous progress” in shaping a peace plan that could be acceptable to Washington, Kyiv, and European partners.
Trump’s administration is also touting new diplomatic momentum, with a separate US military envoy meeting Russian officials in Abu Dhabi. There, American officials reportedly stated that “the Ukrainians have agreed to the peace deal,” suggesting only minor details remained.
But according to a senior Ukrainian source who spoke to CNN, these comments present a far more rosy picture than the reality on the ground. While Kyiv has worked through many of the 28 items included in the leaked US peace proposal, the core sticking points remain significant — and political leaders in Ukraine fear they could undermine national sovereignty and public trust.
The Ukrainian official acknowledged that a “consensus” had been reached on numerous components of the broader framework. However, the source insisted that “it would be very wrong” to suggest the document, in its current form, has been accepted by Ukraine. Instead, negotiations remain intense, complicated, and far from resolved.
Territory Concessions: A Non-Starter for Kyiv
The first and most explosive point of disagreement centers on whether Ukraine should cede territory in the eastern Donbas region, including areas annexed — but not fully conquered — by Russia. The leaked plan suggests the United States is pressuring Kyiv to formalize Russian control over certain areas to facilitate a ceasefire.
This would include the heavily fortified “fortress belt” of frontline towns crucial to Ukraine’s national defense infrastructure. For Ukrainian leaders, surrendering these territories remains politically and morally unacceptable. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died defending these regions, and any concession could trigger domestic outrage, loss of government legitimacy, and renewed instability.
Such a compromise would also align almost perfectly with Russia’s long-standing territorial demands — raising concerns in Kyiv that the US proposal may be skewing in Moscow’s favor.
Military Size Restrictions Raise Alarm
The second major point of contention involves the US proposal to cap Ukraine’s military strength at 600,000 troops. Ukrainian officials say the number has since been revised upward during discussions, but they still view the idea of legally binding troop limits as dangerous, especially given the unpredictability of future Russian actions.
Demilitarizing to foreign-imposed levels, Ukrainian negotiators argue, could leave the country vulnerable in the long term and effectively reward Russia for its aggression. Any formal limit on troop strength could also weaken Ukraine’s bargaining power and restrict its ability to rapidly mobilize in case of future threats.
This point, too, overlaps with the Kremlin’s stated objectives.
NATO Membership — Kyiv’s Firm Red Line
The third and most politically sensitive disagreement involves a US request for Ukraine to formally abandon its bid to join NATO. The Ukrainian official was unequivocal: such a demand is “unacceptable.”
Kyiv believes abandoning NATO aspirations would set a dangerous precedent, effectively giving Russia veto power over the defensive alliances of sovereign nations — despite not being a member of those alliances itself.
For decades, NATO membership has been a central component of Ukraine’s security doctrine. Relinquishing this goal could destabilize Ukrainian politics, undermine military morale, and embolden Russia, which has repeatedly used NATO expansion as a justification for its invasion.
US Optimism vs. Ukrainian Reality
While US leaders continue projecting confidence, Kyiv insiders say the differences are anything but minor. All three disputed points reflect Moscow’s core demands for ending the war — territorial concessions, a weakened Ukrainian military, and a permanent bar from NATO.
Agreeing to these would dramatically shift the geopolitical landscape and could undermine Ukraine’s long-term security. For this reason, Ukrainian negotiators are proceeding with caution, even as Washington encourages rapid progress.
European leaders, too, are uneasy. Officials in France, Germany, and the Baltics have warned that discussions must proceed carefully and that Ukraine should not be pressured into making irreversible concessions.
The Road Ahead
As negotiations continue, US messaging remains clear: a deal is within reach. But Ukrainian officials maintain that critical issues must be resolved without compromising the country’s sovereignty or security.
The next round of talks — expected to include a potential meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump at the White House — may determine whether the US-proposed framework can evolve into a viable peace agreement.
For now, optimism from Washington contrasts sharply with the reality described by Kyiv: there is progress, but peace is still far from guaranteed.
