Beneath the Florida sun, far from the frozen trenches and drone-shadowed ruins of eastern Ukraine, the outlines of a possible endgame are beginning to sharpen. In a series of high-stakes meetings in Miami, American, Russian, and Ukrainian envoys have spent the last few days dissecting the anatomy of a conflict that has redefined global security, searching for the “kernel” of a deal that remains as elusive as it is essential.
While the palm-fringed backdrop of South Florida offered a stark contrast to the grit of the Donbas, the rhetoric emerging from the luxury suites was grounded in cold realism. “Our shared priority is to stop the killing,” said Steve Witkoff, the US envoy, following a series of meetings he described as “productive and constructive.” Yet, even as the diplomats spoke of “prosperity plans,” the heavy lifting of territorial concessions and security guarantees loomed over the proceedings.
By the third day of discussions, the “nut graph” of the current diplomatic moment became clear: while all parties have finally agreed on what is—and is not—negotiable, the distance between those positions remains a chasm. The central friction point is no longer just the fact of the war, but the specific mechanics of its conclusion: the fate of Donetsk, the management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and the fundamental rights of the populations caught between two worlds.
The Architecture of a Deal
The Miami talks were structured around four primary pillars designed to move beyond a simple ceasefire toward a lasting stability. According to a joint statement from Witkoff and Ukrainian negotiator Rustem Umerov, the delegations focused on a 20-point plan, multilateral security frameworks, specific US-Ukraine security guarantees, and a long-term economic recovery “prosperity plan.”
“Peace must not merely be a cessation of hostilities,” Witkoff noted, “but a dignified foundation for a stable future.”
However, the diplomatic polish of the joint statement was tempered by the blunt assessment of US Vice President-elect JD Vance. In an interview with the American outlet Unherd, Vance suggested that the fog of war is lifting to reveal a starker reality.
“The Russians are truly seeking control of the Donetsk region,” Vance said, noting that while Ukrainians “logically” view this as a major security threat, there is a tacit, internal recognition in Kyiv that the loss of the territory might eventually be inevitable, whether in 12 months or longer.
Sovereignty and Stumbling Blocks
Beyond the borders of Donetsk, the negotiations have moved into the granular—and arguably more complex—territory of “functional sovereignty.” This includes the fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest. Negotiators are reportedly debating whether the facility can exist under joint management or if it must fall under the sole control of one party.
Equally sensitive is the human element. Vance highlighted the rights of Russian residents in Ukraine and Ukrainians in Russia, as well as the right of return for those living in occupied territories. The Russians, Vance noted, have insisted on mechanisms to guarantee the rights of the Russian population in eastern Ukraine—a demand that touches the very heart of the conflict’s ethnic and political roots.
“Despite the complexity of these issues, the parties have begun to reveal their true positions,” Vance said. “This paves the way for the possibility of future progress.”
A Cold Front from the Kremlin
Despite the “constructive” reports from Florida, the view from Moscow remains decidedly frostier. The Kremlin on Sunday denied that any formal proposals for trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States were currently on the table.
Yuri Ushakov, the Kremlin’s top foreign policy aide, dismissed reports of an imminent breakthrough. “At the moment, no one has seriously discussed this initiative,” Ushakov told reporters. He further criticised attempts by European and Ukrainian officials to “amend” US proposals, suggesting that these tweaks—aimed at hardening the terms for Moscow—would only serve to prolong the conflict.
“I am sure that the proposals presented by the Europeans and Ukrainians… do not improve the document nor increase the possibility of achieving long-term peace,” Ushakov added.
This diplomatic friction was echoed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While he expressed openness to the American proposal for trilateral meetings—which would mark the first face-to-face negotiations in six months—he remained publicly sceptical that such meetings would yield immediate fruit.
The Reality of the Ground
The urgency of the Miami talks is underscored by the shifting reality on the battlefield. Even as envoys discussed “prosperity,” Ukrainian forces on Monday were engaged in fierce combat to repel a Russian advance in the Sumy region.
Reports emerged that Russian forces had forcibly moved approximately 50 residents from the border village of Hraubovske into Russia. This renewed Russian push into territory Ukraine had reclaimed during its 2022 counter-offensive serves as a grim reminder that, for now, the “non-negotiables” are still being contested with steel rather than ink.
“The fighting is currently ongoing in the village of Hraubovske,” the Ukrainian Joint Forces stated, as they worked to push “the occupiers” back across the border. While the Kremlin claimed control of the nearby village of Vysoke, the discrepancy between the diplomatic language in Florida and the violence in Sumy highlights the fragility of the peace process.
As the Miami summit concludes, the world is left with a clearer map of the obstacles, but no certain path around them. The “dignified foundation” Witkoff spoke of remains a blueprint on a table, waiting for the moment when the cost of the war finally outweighs the price of the concessions.
