Zelensky Says Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal Is “90% Ready,” But Final Terms on Territory Are Non-Negotiable

KYIV, Ukraine — Under the wail of air raid sirens and the crack of air defenses on New Year’s Eve, President Volodymyr Zelensky told Ukrainians that a peace agreement to end the war with Russia is “90% ready.” Then he drew a bright line.

“Signatures under weak agreements only fuel war,” Zelensky said in his annual New Year’s address, released late Dec. 31 from Kyiv. “My signature will be under a strong agreement.”

The speech was the clearest public confirmation yet that a U.S.-designed, Western-backed peace framework between Ukraine and Russia has advanced into a near-complete draft. It also underscored how far the process still has to go on the issues that will define Ukraine’s future.

“The peace agreement is 90% ready. Ten percent remains,” Zelensky said. “But this 10% is far more than just numbers. It is about the fate of peace, the fate of Ukraine and Europe, how people will live, and it can save millions of lives.”

A near-finished framework, with core issues unresolved

Ukrainian, U.S. and European officials say the emerging deal is built around several “baskets”: security guarantees for Ukraine, territorial and political arrangements in areas occupied by Russia, military and arms control provisions, and a postwar reconstruction and economic plan.

According to Zelensky, a 20-point framework has been hammered out in recent months in talks involving his team, U.S. negotiators and European leaders. He has said that bilateral U.S.-Ukraine security guarantees are “100% agreed,” while a broader system of guarantees involving European states is “almost agreed.”

Western officials, speaking publicly in recent weeks, have described a U.S. offer of long-term security commitments for Ukraine — reportedly over 15 years — that would resemble some elements of NATO’s collective defense, but stop short of full NATO membership. The plan contemplates continued military aid, joint exercises and restrictions on certain offensive systems near Russia’s borders.

Most other sections of the draft, including a major international reconstruction fund and a roadmap for deeper economic integration between Ukraine and the European Union, are also largely settled, according to diplomats involved in the discussions.

The remaining disputes, by Zelensky’s own description and the accounts of officials in several capitals, center on territory, sovereignty and the strength of the guarantees that would underpin any concessions.

Territory at the heart of the “last 10%”

Russia currently occupies around 19% of Ukraine, nearly four years after launching its full-scale invasion in February 2022. That includes most of the Luhansk region, large parts of Donetsk, and territory in the southern regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, as well as Crimea, which Moscow seized in 2014 and later claimed to annex.

The Kremlin has repeatedly demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from all areas Russia now claims as its own and that any settlement reflect Moscow’s annexations. President Vladimir Putin and senior aides say Russia will not abandon its “war aims,” which include what they describe as the “liberation” of all of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Ukraine’s official position has not changed. Kyiv’s stated goal remains the restoration of its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea. A 10-point Ukrainian “Peace Formula,” first presented in 2022, calls for the full withdrawal of Russian troops and the return of all occupied territory.

“Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelensky has said repeatedly over the past year.

Those positions frame the central clash. Western media have reported that early versions of the U.S. plan envisioned Ukraine ceding control over some front-line areas it still holds, creating demilitarized or “free economic” zones in parts of Donbas. Ukrainian officials objected, warning that such zones could become springboards for future Russian offensives.

More controversial provisions in initial drafts — including proposed caps on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces and broad amnesties — have been scaled back or removed after pushback from Kyiv and European governments, according to diplomats. But the fundamental question of who controls which land, and under what legal status, remains unresolved.

Zelensky has acknowledged that “territorial concessions remain our biggest challenge” in the talks. He has said he cannot personally “give away” Ukrainian territory and has suggested that any change to borders could require approval by parliament and, potentially, a national referendum, if a cease-fire is in place.

Domestic red lines and political risks

The Ukrainian president spoke on New Year’s Eve of a nation exhausted but not ready to surrender.

“Are we tired? Very,” he said. “Does this mean we are ready to surrender? Anyone who thinks so is deeply mistaken.”

That line was widely interpreted in Kyiv as an attempt to reassure a war-weary public and, critically, the armed forces, that he will not trade away territory for a quick end to fighting without firm protections.

Zelensky also governs under legal and political constraints of his own making. In October 2022, after Russia announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, he signed a decree banning negotiations with Putin personally. The decree could be revised or superseded, but it reflects a broader sentiment in Ukrainian society that Moscow is not a trustworthy partner.

Any settlement that left Russia in control of territory internationally recognized as Ukrainian would carry serious domestic risks. Veterans’ groups and nationalist parties have warned against what they call “capitulation,” and opposition figures could seek to exploit public anger over perceived concessions.

To address questions of legitimacy, Zelensky has floated holding a nationwide referendum on any U.S.-brokered plan that touches on sovereignty or borders, on the condition that Russia accept at least a temporary cease-fire. Russian officials have so far publicly rejected that idea.

Moscow signals defiance, not compromise

While Zelensky was promising only a “strong agreement,” Putin used his own New Year address to strike a different tone.

In a speech broadcast from the Kremlin on Dec. 31, Putin expressed confidence in what he called Russia’s inevitable victory and accused the West of waging a proxy war. He did not mention the “90% ready” framework.

Russian officials have said they view the original U.S. draft as a basis for discussion “in general,” while condemning subsequent changes proposed by Ukraine and the European Union as “unconstructive.” They have repeatedly insisted that any deal must take into account “new territorial realities,” a reference to the annexations Kyiv and most of the world deem illegal.

The divergence in rhetoric highlights the gap between the parties even as mediators report progress on paper.

U.S. and European mediators walk a tightrope

The framework now on the table has been shaped heavily in Washington. President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025, has made an eventual Ukraine-Russia settlement a signature foreign policy goal, dispatching special envoys and hosting Zelensky at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in December.

European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have joined multiple rounds of talks to modify the U.S. plan.

Publicly, they have welcomed what they describe as a “modified framework” and have repeated the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” — a slogan meant to signal that Kyiv will not be forced into accepting terms dictated by others.

Privately, Western officials acknowledge they are trying to balance competing priorities: reducing the risk and cost of a long war, preventing Russia from being seen as rewarded for aggression, and preserving the credibility of security guarantees for Ukraine.

What makes a “weak” or “strong” peace

Zelensky did not spell out in his address what he would consider a “weak” agreement. But Ukrainian and Western analysts say key tests will include whether Russian forces are required to withdraw from newly occupied areas, how clear and enforceable any cease-fire lines are, and how automatic Western support would be in case of renewed attacks.

For Kyiv, a “strong” peace would likely mean binding, ratified guarantees from the United States and major European states; meaningful Russian withdrawals; and a reconstruction package tied to Ukraine’s path toward the European Union. Moscow, by contrast, has signaled it wants recognition — de facto or de jure — of its control over at least some occupied territories and a pathway to easing sanctions.

The stronger the guarantees and the more they constrain Russia, the harder they may be for the Kremlin to accept. The more the deal cements current front lines and limits Western obligations, the more resistance Zelensky can expect at home.

A decisive 10% for Ukraine — and beyond

As Ukraine’s war enters its fourth year, the outline of a possible peace is clearer than at any time since Russia’s invasion. Yet the final, disputed portion of the text — involving borders, sovereignty and the means to enforce them — could determine far more than when the guns fall silent.

It will shape whether millions of displaced Ukrainians can return home, whether investors will commit to rebuilding shattered cities, and whether other countries contemplating armed revision of borders see Ukraine’s experience as a warning or an invitation.

In his New Year speech, Zelensky said he had returned to Kyiv at 6 a.m. after nearly 50 hours on the road with his team, shuttling between capitals in pursuit of a deal.

“This remaining 10% needs 10% of the unity and wisdom of Ukrainians, Americans, Europeans and the entire world so that peace can work 100%,” he said.

How that 10% is written — or whether it remains blank — will show how much Ukraine, Russia and their backers are prepared to trade between peace, territory and the principles they have each declared non-negotiable.