Ukraine Talks Yield Progress but Challenges Remain

The latest round of Ukraine talks in Florida is being marketed as “productive,” but nobody serious is claiming that peace is close. The war is in its fourth year, Russia still holds large areas of occupied territory, and Ukraine is burning through people, ammunition, and infrastructure at an unsustainable rate. At best, these Ukraine talks are an attempt to sketch a framework that might someday become a ceasefire and, later, a political settlement. At worst, they risk becoming another exercise in buying time while the facts on the ground keep shifting.

For Kyiv, the stakes are obvious: accept a bad deal and you risk locking in territorial losses and permanent vulnerability; reject every compromise and you risk fighting a war of attrition you can’t afford. For Washington, the Florida meeting is a test of whether the U.S. can still shape Europe’s security architecture without getting pulled into direct war with Russia.

Recent Diplomatic Engagements — Ukraine Talks

On November 30, 2025, senior American and Ukrainian officials met at a resort in Florida to go over a revised ceasefire and peace framework. Reports indicate that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump-aligned envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and Ukrainian national security chief Rustem Umerov were all involved in the session. Both sides described the Ukraine talks as “constructive” and said “additional progress” had been made on a plan that could eventually be presented to Moscow.

This Florida round is part of a broader effort to rework an earlier twenty-eight-point proposal that had been widely criticized across Europe as lopsided, vague on security guarantees, and overly generous to Russian territorial claims. European governments, think tanks, and many members of the U.S. Congress flagged the first draft as a blueprint for a frozen conflict, not a just peace.

The current iteration tries to address some of those criticisms. According to open reporting, negotiators spent significant time on ceasefire concepts, sequencing of sanctions relief, and mechanisms for reconstruction and monitoring. The Florida Ukraine talks also focused on how any U.S.–Ukraine framework would mesh with European efforts and with principles set out at the 2024 Swiss Summit on Peace in Ukraine, which emphasized territorial integrity, nuclear safety, food security, and the return of deported civilians.

One key fact: Russia is not in the room. These are preparatory contacts between Washington and Kyiv, not actual negotiations with Moscow. That cuts both ways. It allows the U.S. and Ukraine to align their positions without Russian pressure, but it also means nothing agreed in Florida is binding on the Kremlin.

Core Issues in the Ukraine Talks

Inside the Ukraine talks, the hardest arguments revolve around two questions: what happens to the territory Russia currently occupies, and what kind of security guarantees Ukraine receives to prevent a repeat invasion.

Territory and Borders in the Ukraine Talks

Any territorial map emerging from the Ukraine talks is politically radioactive. Russia claims to have annexed Crimea and four additional Ukrainian regions, despite incomplete control and near-unanimous non-recognition by the rest of the world. Accepting those annexations outright would signal that borders in Europe can be changed by force, shredding a core principle of the post–Cold War order.

For Ukraine, formal recognition of those annexations is a red line. Public opinion is strongly against it, and any government that tried to sell that kind of deal would face a massive backlash. That’s why most proposals referenced in the Florida discussions talk about ceasefire lines and de facto control, not about redrawing borders on paper. Options floated in policy circles include status-neutral ceasefires, long-term international monitoring, and deferred status referendums under strict conditions. None of these options is clean, and all of them risk turning occupied areas into permanent gray zones.

Security Guarantees at the Heart of the Ukraine Talks

Security guarantees are the other pillar of the Ukraine talks, and arguably the more important one from Kyiv’s perspective. Ukrainians have not forgotten the Budapest Memorandum, under which they surrendered one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals for vague assurances that failed when Russia first invaded in 2014 and then again in 2022.

This time, Kyiv wants something closer to real deterrence. Proposals being discussed around the Florida process include:

Long-term, legally grounded commitments of military aid and training.
Integrated air defense and joint planning with Western militaries.
Pre-positioned equipment and industrial rebuilding inside Ukraine itself.

Some drafts talk about “Article 5-like” language—an explicit link between any new attack on Ukraine and a coordinated response by its security partners. But unless Ukraine actually enters NATO, such promises will remain politically constructed rather than treaty-anchored. The question inside and around the Ukraine talks is whether practical deterrence—a heavily armed Ukraine wrapped into Western planning—can substitute for formal alliance membership.

Humanitarian and Economic Stakes Behind the Ukraine Talks

Beyond maps and legal phrases, the war has left a brutal humanitarian footprint. Since February 2022, millions of Ukrainians have been driven from their homes. The UN estimates that large numbers are internally displaced, while millions more have taken refuge in neighboring countries such as Poland and across the EU. Infrastructure—from power plants and rail lines to hospitals and schools—has taken sustained damage from missile and drone attacks.

Any agreement shaped by the Ukraine talks immediately collides with the question of who pays to rebuild all of this and under what conditions. Western governments are already discussing multi-year reconstruction funds, debt relief, and investment guarantees. Those discussions are not separate from the Florida process; they are part of its leverage. Kyiv needs credible commitments that money and expertise will actually arrive once the guns fall at least partly silent. Donor governments, in turn, want guardrails on corruption and clear benchmarks for progress.

The human cost also shapes public perceptions of the Ukraine talks. For people living in battered cities, what matters is not clever drafting but whether shelling stops, utilities stay on, and it becomes safe to send children back to school. A ceasefire that freezes lines but fails to unlock serious humanitarian access or rebuilding could easily be seen as betrayal rather than relief.

International Reactions to the Ukraine Talks

European Views on the Ukraine Talks

European governments read the Ukraine talks through very different lenses. States bordering Russia or Belarus—such as Poland and the Baltic countries—tend to worry that any compromise that locks in Russian gains will encourage future aggression. For them, the Florida framework has to reinforce the idea that invading neighbors backfires, not pays off.

Larger Western European states share that concern but are also fixated on the long-term cost of an open-ended war: defense budgets, energy uncertainty, and domestic political fatigue. They are more inclined to explore off-ramps, provided those off-ramps do not shred core principles like sovereignty and non-recognition of annexations. This tension inside Europe is one reason alternative peace outlines have been circulating, some of which tighten language on accountability for war crimes and on future sanctions snap-back mechanisms.

Global South Perspectives on the Ukraine Talks

Many governments in the global south are watching the Ukraine talks with a mix of frustration and caution. They have borne the brunt of higher food and energy prices triggered by the war and by sanctions, but they are wary of being drawn into a new East-West confrontation. For them, the Florida process is a test of whether Western countries actually mean it when they talk about defending international law and the U.N. Charter.

Multilateral efforts, such as the 2024 Swiss Summit on Peace in Ukraine, have set minimum conditions for a “just peace”: territorial integrity, nuclear safety, food security, and the return of deported civilians and prisoners. Any outcome from the Florida-based Ukraine talks that falls below those standards will face pushback when it hits U.N. forums or wider diplomatic venues.

What the Ukraine Talks Can and Cannot Achieve

There is a persistent illusion that one big signing ceremony could end this war in one stroke. Realistically, the Ukraine talks can, at best, create a layered process: an initial ceasefire, agreements on monitoring and verification, phased withdrawals and demilitarization in certain zones, a schedule for sanctions relief, and a long-term track for political questions like territorial status and war-crimes accountability.

Even that is a heavy lift. If either side believes it can significantly improve its battlefield position, it has every incentive to drag its feet. That’s why analysts keep warning that continued military support for Ukraine and sustained economic pressure on Russia are not “alternatives” to diplomacy—they are preconditions for the Ukraine talks to become more than theater.

What the Florida process cannot do is magically fix Russia’s internal politics, erase nationalist narratives, or dictate Ukraine’s domestic reforms. At best, the Ukraine talks might carve out a space in which those longer arcs can unfold without daily missile barrages and mass displacement. At worst, a poorly designed deal could cement a bad status quo, weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty, and normalize the use of force to change borders.

Bottom Line

Strip away the spin and you are left with a fairly stark picture. The Florida Ukraine talks are a sign that the U.S. and Ukraine are still trying to coordinate an endgame instead of simply drifting. They move the discussion from slogans—“peace” versus “victory”—into concrete trade-offs about territory, security, and reconstruction. That is the necessary starting point for any serious settlement.

But none of the hard problems have disappeared. Russia still hasn’t engaged on this specific framework. Ukrainian society will not tolerate a settlement that looks like capitulation. Western governments are divided over how far to push, how long to pay, and how much risk to take on. Until those contradictions are resolved, the Ukraine talks are best understood as one piece of a larger struggle, not a neat diplomatic shortcut out of it.

If, in the end, the process produces an arrangement that leaves Ukrainians safer and more secure than they are today, it will have been worth the pain and the compromise. If it simply freezes Russian gains and rebrands the front line as a “border,” then these Ukraine talks will go down as one more cautionary tale in a very long file.

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Post Views: 2

Vera2, Global Affairs

Ukraine Talks Productive but More Work Needed, Rubio Says Update