While much of President Donald Trump’s attention since his return to power has been focused on perceived threats in this hemisphere, the Russia/Ukraine war grinds on in a bloody dance of incremental yet inexorable Russian advances in the east and persistent drone and missile attacks by both sides. Many believe that the combatant countries may be reaching a level of military and societal exhaustion with the conflict, giving hope to the possibility of substantive negotiations for an armistice on the horizon. 

As we approach the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February, it is worth considering what issues might dominate any upcoming negotiations. Suffice it to say, the following points of contention will test the mettle of the most seasoned diplomats and negotiators alive today. 

Land for peace: This will be a fundamental fulcrum in any armistice talks. It should be seen as two questions: How much land does Ukraine lose and how secure a peace will Ukraine achieve? With respect to the first question, Moscow now occupies approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory and will undoubtedly insist on solidifying those geographic gains in any agreement. Kyiv will attempt to “trade” occupied territory in Russia’s Kursk region for yet-to-be-determined areas of Kremlin-controlled Ukraine. 

The second part of land for peace is, however, the stickier wicket, as each side has diametrically opposed views of what constitutes peace. For Ukraine, any loss of pre-2014 territory must be compensated with airtight security guarantees from its western partners, ideally to include a pathway to eventual North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership. This demand, which many in the west, including Trump, don’t view as realistic, will still be the opening gambit by the Ukrainian side. 

From Moscow’s perspective, Kyiv’s potential integration into NATO was one of the initial reasons for the “special military operation” in February 2023. Russian President Vladimir Putin will, therefore, undoubtedly reject out of hand any reference to Ukraine’s possible future NATO aspirations.

Consequently, the challenge for Kyiv will be to ensure substantive and long-term security assurances without crossing the Kremlin’s NATO membership red line.

Peacekeepers/monitors: Should the two sides agree on a framework for land for peace, the next scene in this disputatious drama will feature how to police the frozen frontlines of the conflict. Here again Moscow and Kyiv are unlikely to see eye-to-eye.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will push for a robust force of well-armed, preferably Western, peacekeepers to prevent and counter expected Russian attempts at destabilizing the border regions. 

In contrast, Putin, whose goal is a hobbled, unstable Ukraine ripe for future Russian aggression, will insist on as weak of a force as possible with peace monitors from neutral countries with good relations with Moscow – India and South Africa, for example. The Kremlin will, thus, spurn any efforts by Kyiv to insist on a muscular, long-term force to protect whatever rump Ukraine emerges from prospective armistice talks. A broad-based agreement on the peacekeeping dilemma will presage the next indispensable step in conclusively ending the conflict.

Rebuild and return of refugees: For Ukraine to be a viable post-conflict state, massive amounts of investment will be needed to rebuild the shattered country. In fact, a United Nations study from early 2024 estimated nearly $500 billion over the next decade would be required for reconstruction and recovery. While discussions regarding this massive rebuild may not be part of initial talks, the success or failure of the armistice negotiations will drive donors’ willingness to invest in Ukraine’s rebirth.  

The other critical element of Ukraine’s eventual recovery will be the return of refugees – mostly women and children – who fled the country following the Russian invasion. Given an anemic fertility rate prior to the war, significant war casualties and nearly 7 million refugees abroad, the rump Ukraine faces a demographic crisis of immense proportions.  Consequently, it will be paramount for Kyiv to welcome back and integrate into post-war society as many of the refugees as possible. 

There will logically be a building-block aspect to the negotiations. Mutual consent to a land-for-peace framework will be a prerequisite for congruence on a peacekeeping regime, which will then putatively lead to donor commitments for a rebuild.  With all that in place, refugees will likely repopulate a post-war Ukraine. 

Mapping this out in a newspaper opinion piece is one thing; getting Moscow and Kyiv to diplomatically hash out the details of an armistice after three years of brutal butchery poses challenges of an altogether different magnitude. The task may require a bit more than 24 hours.

Robert Beck of Peterborough served for 30 years overseas with the United States government in embassies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. He now teaches foreign policy classes at Keene State College’s Cheshire Academy for Lifelong Learning.