Why Territorial Talk Is the Toughest Part of the Ukraine Peace Process
Negotiators from Kyiv, Washington and Berlin have repeatedly said that the “territorial question” is the most painful knot to untie. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy describes it as a “painful” issue that must be resolved before any lasting cease‑fire can be set. The core dilemma is simple on the surface – should Ukraine give up any land that Russia has occupied? – but the political, legal and emotional dimensions make it a battlefield of its own.
From “80‑90 percent solved” to “still no deal” – what the numbers really mean
According to an unnamed U.S. source cited by Reuters, the parties believe they have solved roughly 80‑90 % of the agenda items in the peace talks. The remaining gap centres on three pillars:
- Front‑line borders: Where will the new line between Ukraine and Russia run?
- Security guarantees: What concrete promises – from NATO, the United States or a multilateral force – will protect Ukraine after the war?
- Reconstruction plan: How will the devastated western regions be rebuilt and financed?
Experts warn that percentages can be misleading; a single unresolved issue can stall an entire package.
What a European‑Led Multinational Force Could Look Like
European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, have signalled support for a “European‑led, U.S.-backed” force that would operate inside Ukraine. The concept mirrors the NATO‑coordinated training missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but with a sharper focus on:
- Rebuilding Ukraine’s air defence network.
- Securing the Black Sea coast against naval aggression.
- Providing a visible deterrent on the front lines while diplomatic talks continue.
In practice, such a force would likely draw troops from Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and the Baltic states, under a unified command that reports to both the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy and NATO’s strategic council.
Security Guarantees: From NATO Article 5 to Custom Guarantees
One of the most frequently mentioned safety nets is NATO Article 5, the collective‑defence clause that treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. While Ukraine is not a NATO member, several countries have floated “custom guarantees” that would give Ukraine a similar level of protection without formally extending Article 5.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump hinted that a new security pact could be crafted to win Russian acquiescence, but critics argue that any guarantee lacking NATO’s full backing may be too fragile to deter future aggression.
Reconstruction: The Next Frontier of Diplomatic Leverage
Rebuilding Ukraine’s shattered infrastructure is already a political bargaining chip. The European Union has pledged over €30 billion for reconstruction, but the disbursement will depend on the final peace settlement.
Potential models include:
- Public‑private partnership (PPP): Encouraging Western firms to invest in Ukrainian energy grids and transport corridors.
- International reconstruction fund: A UN‑backed trust that pools contributions from G7 and EU states, with strict oversight mechanisms.
- Reparations from Russia: A contentious demand that could be baked into any final accord.
Did you know?
In the 1990s, the Baltic states secured NATO‑style security guarantees through “Partnership for Peace” agreements before they were full members. A similar incremental approach could be a realistic pathway for Ukraine.
What the Future Might Hold: Three Scenarios
1. Incremental Agreement with a Buffer Zone
Negotiators could settle on a demilitarised “buffer zone” that leaves most of the occupied territories under Ukrainian sovereignty, while granting Russia limited “special status” zones for ethnic Russian communities. This would require a robust multinational force to enforce the buffer and a long‑term security umbrella from NATO.
2. Full‑Scale Withdrawal with a Robust Reconstruction Package
In a more optimistic outcome, Ukraine would regain all pre‑2022 borders in exchange for a massive reconstruction fund and a binding security treaty that mirrors Article 5, albeit under a new multilateral framework. The political risk here is that Russia may view such a deal as a loss of strategic depth.
3. Stalemate and Frozen Conflict
If territorial talks continue to stall, the war could settle into a “frozen conflict” similar to the situation in Transnistria or Nagorno‑Karabakh, with intermittent skirmishes and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. In this case, ad‑hoc humanitarian corridors and limited cease‑fire agreements would dominate the diplomatic agenda.
Pro tip for policymakers
When drafting any security guarantee, anchor the promise in concrete, verifiable actions (e.g., joint patrols, regular joint exercises, and transparent rules of engagement) rather than broad, ambiguous language. This reduces the risk of misinterpretation and strengthens deterrence.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Will Ukraine have to cede any of its territory to achieve peace?
- Most proposals keep the current internationally recognised borders intact, but some “special status” arrangements for certain regions are being discussed.
- What does NATO Article 5 mean for Ukraine?
- Article 5 guarantees collective defence for NATO members. Ukraine is not a member, but several countries are exploring “custom guarantees” that would offer similar protection without formal accession.
- How soon could a multinational force be deployed?
- Deployment timelines depend on political consensus among participating nations and the establishment of a clear mandate. Optimistic estimates suggest a force could be operational within 6‑12 months after an agreement is signed.
- Is the United States still willing to provide security guarantees?
- The U.S. remains a key player, with its special envoy Steve Witkoff reporting “significant progress.” However, the exact nature of U.S. guarantees will be shaped by both domestic politics and broader NATO strategy.
- What role will Norway play in the peace process?
- Prime Minister Støre is actively involved in the Berlin talks, advocating for a realistic timeline and stressing that any agreement must be acceptable to the Ukrainian public.
What’s next for the Ukraine peace process?
The diplomatic road ahead is uncertain, but the conversation is moving from abstract concepts to concrete proposals. As European leaders, U.S. officials and Ukrainian representatives continue their “working dinner” talks, the balance of power, reconstruction financing and security guarantees will shape the final outcome.
Stay informed and join the conversation – share your thoughts on what you think the most viable path forward is, and subscribe to our newsletter for daily updates on the Ukraine peace process and other global security issues.
