By Maria Popova

December 29, 2025

In the latest Groundhog Day cycle of the Trump administration’s diplomacy to end the Russo-Ukrainian war, we’re again in the moment where the American president claims a settlement is 90% done and just some details — in this case on the status of Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia Power Plant — remain to be sorted out.

We have been here many, many times before. Indeed, it is the limbo where these non-peace-talk peace talks spend most of their time. The intractability stems, in part, from Russia’s intransigence and, in part, from the Trump administration’s failure to act as an honest broker or mediator, let alone an ally to a European democracy defending itself from unprovoked aggression.

After what has been reported as a two-and-a-half-hour meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday, there is still not only no settlement in sight, but the see-saw nature of this narrative has struck again, with that seemingly good news upstaged by what Russia says were Ukrainian drone strikes on Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod on Sunday.

Zelensky dismissed those claims — made Monday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — as “typical Russian lies”.

This latest sequence in the diplomatic charade once again obscures the fundamentals that define the intractability of the Russo-Ukrainian war: Russia has repeatedly refused a ceasefire since Ukraine agreed to it in March; Putin and other Russian officials repeatedly insist Russia will achieve all its goals in Ukraine; Russia wants “peace through Ukrainian surrender”; and, Donald Trump is not the mediator to talk Vladimir Putin out of his scorched-earth bottom line.

Against this backdrop, any discussion of who controls which part of Donbas and in what form, how the Zaporizhzhia power plant would be operated, and even the length and form of US security guarantees for Ukraine after the war is over is a distraction. The real story is that Russia wants to force Ukrainian capitulation diplomatically and the US administration is trying to help by applying constant pressure on Ukraine.

Territorial concessions by Ukraine in Donbas will not solve the war by trading “land for peace” but will only increase the likelihood of a third Russian invasion. The part of Donbas that Putin demands Ukraine withdraw from contains some of Ukraine’s most heavily fortified defense lines.

Russia has failed to break through these lines militarily for 11 years and Putin now has the audacity to ask for this territory to be simply given to him on a silver platter. If Russia does acquire control over Donbas, its route towards another run on Kyiv or Kharkiv to end Ukrainian statehood becomes logistically much more feasible.

It’s not surprising that Putin dares press these absurd demands. Seeking peace through surrender has long been Russia’s modus operandi. What is shocking and appalling is to see the US administration, which is supposed to be Ukraine’s ally, treating the ask seriously and seeking to pressure Ukraine into complying. What is worrisome is having Western media fall for the manipulation and treat a potential Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbas as a pathway to peace rather than a capitulation.

The intractability stems, in part, from Russia’s intransigence and, in part, from the Trump administration’s failure to act as an honest broker or mediator, let alone an ally to a European democracy defending itself from unprovoked aggression.

Much ink is spilled on discussions of the exact form of security guarantees for Ukraine to deter a third Russian invasion after the end of this war. The latest after the Mar-a-Lago meeting is that the US administration has floated “NATO-like” guarantees similar to Article 5 for 15 years, while Zelensky has asked for a longer time period of up to 50 years.

In Europe, the Coalition of the Willing is expected to hammer out details of how many European troops would be deployed, where in Ukraine, and in what numbers to deter a third Russian invasion. In principle, these are worthwhile points of debate and elaboration. But,if the US is prepared to offer “NATO-like” guarantees then why not just accept Ukraine into NATO?

NATO membership has effectively deterred Russia from invading any NATO members while it has invaded numerous non-NATO neighbours. Are US security guarantees and NATO itself even credible anymore in the context of the increasingly cozy Russo-American relationship and the escalating rhetorical hostility of the US administration towards its European NATO allies?

Would the Coalition of the Willing be ready to deploy enough troops, station them along the line of contact where they can act as a tripwire guarantee against a Russian re-invasion, and empower them to shoot at invading Russian troops?

All of these are important questions. But every single one of them amounts to counting chickens before they hatch. as long as Russia is refusing to agree to a ceasefire. The discussion today needs to focus on how to force Russia to this simple first step.

Finally, in a naked attempt at a resource grab, the Trump administration has also allowed discussions of control over the Zaporizhzhia Power Plant—the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe—into the negotiations.

Under the latest Trump plan, the U.S. would take part in running the plant alongside Ukraine and Russia. But this conversation is entirely moot due to Russian intransigence. Russia currently occupies the area around the plant, but Putin has also recently stated Russia’s aims to conquer and occupy the city of Zaporizhzhia, which is the main urban center in the region.

In other words, why is the Trump administration wasting time pressuring Ukraine to agree to a hypothetical compromise on the plant while Russia openly states its goals to expand its occupation of Zaporizhzhia rather than compromise with Ukraine and the U.S.? Again, the entire discussion is a distraction from the simple reality that Russia refuses a ceasefire and remains intransigent and committed to its maximalist goals.

In short, let us keep our eye on the ball and focus on the present rather than some pie-in- the-sky future. Today, Russia refuses a ceasefire and Putin remains committed to conquering all of Ukraine. The Trump administration is not conducting talks to achieve either a just peace or even peace through compromise. Trump has joined Putin in trying to force peace through surrender of Ukraine.

Ukraine continues its effective military resistance on the battlefield and — shamefully for all of the free world that Donald Trump pretends to lead — now has to take part in the diplomatic charade that Trump and Putin are orchestrating. It is time for Ukraine and its real allies to look for an alternative framework for negotiations with an objective mediator, or to simply invest fully in seeking Russia’s defeat.

Maria Popova is Associate Professor of Political Science at McGill University and Co-Director of the Jean Monnet Centre Montreal. With Oxana Shevel, she recently published a book titled Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States.