Russia launched fresh strikes on Kyiv hours before President Volodymyr Zelensky was set to meet with U.S. President Trump to discuss a proposed peace deal, raising fresh doubts about whether Moscow will treat any agreement seriously and highlighting the tough choices ahead for Kyiv and Washington.
The timing of the attacks suggests a message from the Kremlin as negotiators prepare to talk territory and security guarantees. Kyiv faces the hard reality that any deal will require concessions and robust enforcement mechanisms if it is to survive Moscow’s ambitions and protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
The proposed talks center on who controls which lands after a cease-fire and on security guarantees, areas where Ukraine and the United States have been trying to nail down practical solutions. Those negotiations happen against the backdrop of a very real battlefield and an adversary that has repeatedly rewritten the rules by force.
Russia attacked Kyiv and other regions of Ukraine with missiles and drones on Saturday, ahead of what President Volodymyr Zelensky said would be a key meeting with US President Donald Trump to work out a deal to end nearly four years of war.
Before the overnight attacks, Zelensky said his talks in Florida on Sunday would focus on the territory to be controlled by each side after a halt to the fighting that began in February 2022 with President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Russia’s smaller neighbour, Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War Two.
Explosions sounded in Kyiv as Ukraine’s air defence units went into action, and the military said on the Telegram messaging app that missiles were being deployed. The air force said Russian drones were targeting the capital and regions in the northeast and south.
There are practical problems to solve before any peace plan can be implemented, not least the question of who drew up the proposal and who will enforce it. Kyiv is putting forward a plan developed by Zelensky and his advisors, and that plan will be presented to President Trump without Vladimir Putin having had meaningful input.
That imbalance matters because the Kremlin has repeatedly shown it will use coercion to expand influence and claim territory. From Crimea to the Donbas, Putin has acted on a clear pattern: seize ground, then negotiate from a position of fait accompli.
Any U.S. role in guaranteeing Ukrainian security after a cease-fire will require clarity on what guarantees really mean in practice. Past agreements in the post-Soviet era failed in part because they lacked teeth and reliable enforcement, which is exactly the gap Washington must address if it steps in as guarantor.
Amid the continued fierce fighting, territory remains the main diplomatic stumbling block. A 20-point draft in the U.S.-driven campaign to clinch a peace plan is 90% complete, Zelensky told journalists in Kyiv.
He said a security guarantee agreement between Ukraine and the U.S. was almost ready – a key element after guarantees in earlier post-Soviet years proved meaningless.
“A lot can be decided before the New Year,” Zelensky told Politico.
For Republicans focused on strength and deterrence, the key question is how to translate promises into credible action without committing U.S. forces to an open-ended occupation. Strong deterrence means concrete, enforceable steps that make aggression costly and unattractive to Moscow.
If the proposed peace plan requires U.S. guarantees, those guarantees must be realistic and backed by tangible measures, not vague assurances. That could mean security arrangements, monitoring, sanctions triggers, and clear consequences if Russia violates the terms.
Putin’s objectives are blunt and territorial, rooted in restoring influence over lands with Russian-speaking populations and strategic value. After 2014 and the seizure of Crimea, his subsequent campaign showed a willingness to use military force to reshape borders and extract concessions.
Moscow demands that Ukraine withdraw from the areas of the eastern region of Donetsk that Russian troops have failed to occupy in their drive to secure all of the Donbas, which also includes the Luhansk region.
Kyiv wants the fighting halted at the current lines.
That clash over lines on the map is where talks will likely stumble. Kyiv aims to preserve as much of its territory as possible, while Moscow wants to formalize gains made on the ground. Any agreement that leaves Russia in control of swaths of Ukrainian land will be politically explosive at home and infuriating to Ukrainians who have fought and died to defend their country.
The U.S. will have to weigh strategic priorities: backing Ukrainian sovereignty while preventing escalation that could draw NATO into direct conflict. The practical steps chosen now will shape whether any cease-fire becomes a durable peace or a pause that simply resets the battlefield for another round of fighting.
Expect an intense bargaining session with heavy geopolitical stakes, where the difference between a cease-fire and a lasting peace will depend on enforcement, clarity on territory, and whether Moscow decides it can live with the outcome. The coming days will test whether diplomacy backed by strength can produce an outcome that is both stable and just.
Add comment