The New York Times: Trump’s Peace Deal Faces Harsh Reality

US President Donald Trump, who has been actively promoting talks between Ukraine and Russia, is increasingly facing a reality that makes it difficult to reach a quick peace deal. Despite White House claims of "some progress", key issues – above all, Ukraine’s security guarantees – remain unresolved, The New York Times reports, quoted by Focus.

A few hours before Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at his Mar-a-Lago residence, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively cast doubt on the meaning of these negotiations. He said that Moscow would never agree to the deployment of European troops in Ukraine – one of the central elements of Kiev's security plan.

"If the Europeans show up, they will become a legitimate target", Lavrov said, commenting on the possible presence of EU forces to deter new aggression by the Russian Federation and control the demilitarized zone.

The Kremlin's tough rhetoric has highlighted the main problem in the negotiations: Russia has not yet made any concessions. The talks with the participation of the United States have so far focused mainly on what compromises Ukraine is ready to make and what Washington can offer in return. According to American officials, Vladimir Putin is only drawing "red lines", insisting, in particular, on further territorial claims.

However, after his conversation with Putin on Sunday, Trump again stated that the Russian leader is "ready for peace". However, none of the key Western allies publicly supported this assessment.

The most difficult issue remains the long-term deterrence of Russia. Zelensky insists that the proposed 20-point plan provides for security guarantees for Ukraine, "similar to NATO Article 5", i.e. an obligation of the United States to defend Ukraine in the event of a new attack.

However, Trump avoids such formulations. He also faces domestic political resistance: a significant part of the Republicans, including Vice President J.D. Vance, opposes any commitments that could involve the United States in a war over Ukraine.

Another element of Trump's strategy is achieving "strategic stability" with Russia. In his opinion, this means not only controlling nuclear risks, but also normalizing diplomatic and economic relations. Such a scenario envisages the lifting of sanctions, the restoration of trade, and the return of Russia to the Western economic orbit.

European leaders and part of the American political elite call these ideas "naive and dangerous while Putin is in power".

At the end of the year, Trump and Zelensky found themselves in a situation that was difficult to imagine just a few months ago: there are detailed peace proposals on the table, and Trump himself admits that there will be no quick solution. “There are no deadlines”, he said, effectively abandoning his previous promises to end the war “in one day”.

Former US National Security Council official Thomas Graham notes that despite the criticism, the very fact of negotiations became possible only after Trump resumed direct dialogue with Putin in February:

“The contours of a final settlement are visible, even if both sides categorically deny it”.

At the same time, key questions remain unanswered: is Russia ready for real compromises, will it agree to a demilitarized zone, and what exactly the US is ready to guarantee Ukraine in the event of new aggression. It is these decisions that will ultimately determine whether the current diplomacy will be the path to peace.