Are russia and ukraine near agreement
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Negotiators in Berlin and Geneva have closed much of the diplomatic architecture — especially legally backed, “NATO‑like” security guarantees that the U.S. and Europe say are nearly finalized — but the core political bargain over territory remains unresolved and Russia has repeatedly signaled it will not yield on the regions it has annexed, so a final Russia‑Ukraine agreement is not yet within reach [1] [2] [3].
1. Progress on security guarantees: real but incomplete
U.S. and European officials report clear progress on a set of legally binding security guarantees for Ukraine that would mirror NATO’s Article 5 and include multinational forces, monitoring mechanisms and commitments to punish any Russian reinvasion, and negotiators in Berlin say most of those papers are largely agreed and could be presented to Moscow within days [2] [4] [5] [6].
2. Territory: the decisive, unresolved battleground
While security texts have advanced, the central political trade — which tracts of land, if any, Ukraine might cede or temporarily manage as part of a settlement — remains a live and fierce dispute; U.S. plans reportedly envisage Ukrainian withdrawals from parts of Donbas under Ukrainian control, but Zelensky and Ukraine insist territorial concessions must be decided by Ukrainians, not imposed externally [2] [6] [7].
3. Moscow’s public red lines: constitutionalizing conquest
The Kremlin has publicly rejected “NATO‑like” troop presences in Ukraine and insisted it will not compromise on the five regions it annexed — positions repeated by senior officials including Foreign Ministry spokespeople and the deputy foreign minister — and Russia’s domestic messaging frames concessions to the West as unacceptable, making Moscow’s flexibility narrow in public statements [4] [3] [8].
4. Tacit openings and strategic hedges from Russia
At the same time, some Western officials report Moscow is open to elements that were once unthinkable — for example, Russian receptivity to Ukraine joining the European Union as part of a deal — which highlights that Moscow’s negotiating posture mixes immovable public red lines on territory with selective willingness to accept alternative political alignments short of NATO accession [9] [10].
5. Why a deal could still stall even if papers are ready
Even assuming the U.S. and Ukraine finalize texts and present them to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin has historically avoided direct meetings with Zelensky and senior Russian officials have said draft peace plans are candidates for further modification rather than final agreements, so Moscow’s acceptance is far from guaranteed [1] [8] [3].
6. Military realities and leverage matter as much as signatures
On the ground, Russia’s strike campaign and persistent attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure keep coercive pressure in play even as diplomats negotiate, and analysts warn that Moscow’s ability — and willingness — to accept compromises will depend on how the battlefield and domestic political calculations evolve in both countries [1] [11].
7. Competing agendas and who benefits from haste
U.S. officials express urgency to produce an offer the Kremlin can accept and to show results quickly, a dynamic that can push negotiators toward compromises favorable to speed; critics and analysts caution that haste risks rewarding aggression or leaving unresolved accountability and reconstruction questions that Ukraine has emphasized [2] [6] [11].
8. Bottom line: close on guarantees, wide open on maps
The dealmaking picture is mixed: negotiators are converging on enforceable security guarantees and many diplomatic details appear near completion, but the indispensable political question — recognition, return or transfer of territory — remains contested and Moscow’s publicly stated red lines make a comprehensive Russia‑Ukraine agreement unlikely in the immediate term absent a major change in Russian posture or battlefield dynamics [1] [2] [3] [11].