Documents reveal disagreements over territory and sanctions in US peace efforts for Ukraine

Recent attempts by diplomats to negotiate a peace deal for Ukraine have shown major disagreements between the United States, European allies, and Ukraine itself, making it clear how difficult it will be to end the current war. Two documents obtained by Reuters, which outline proposals and counterproposals from discussions in Paris and London, reveal deep divisions over critical issues. This includes giving up territory, sanctions on Russia, security promises for Ukraine, and financial payments for war damages.

The first document, presented by U.S. representative Steve Witkoff during talks in Paris, suggests a peace plan that includes the U.S. officially accepting Russia’s control over Crimea (a Ukrainian region taken by Russia in 2014) and informally acknowledging Russia’s hold on other occupied areas in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Additionally, this document proposes removing sanctions placed on Russia since its 2014 takeover of Crimea as a key part of the peace agreement. While this approach aims for a quick solution, it has faced strong opposition.

Documents revealed showing how far US is to making peace between Russia and Ukraine

A second document, created during later talks in London between Ukrainian and European officials, directly opposes these ideas. This counterproposal insists that any talk of giving up land should only happen after a ceasefire has been firmly in place. Most importantly, it completely rejects recognizing Russian control over any Ukrainian territory.

On the issue of sanctions, this document suggests gradually reducing sanctions from 2014 onward, but only if Russia strictly follows the terms of any peace deal. It also allows for sanctions to be brought back if Russia breaks the agreement. This approach focuses on protecting Ukraine’s independence and land while holding Russia responsible for its actions.

The differences also extend to security promises for Ukraine after the war. The Witkoff document mentions “strong security guarantees” involving European and friendly countries but does not give specifics and clearly states that Ukraine cannot join NATO.

In sharp contrast, the Ukrainian and European counterproposals demand much stronger and more detailed security guarantees, including an agreement similar to NATO’s Article 5, which requires members to defend each other if attacked. This counterproposal also firmly rejects any limits on the size of Ukraine’s military or restrictions on foreign troops being stationed in Ukraine. This shows a strong desire to prevent future Russian aggression.

Financial compensation for the massive destruction in Ukraine during the war is another major point of disagreement. The Witkoff document briefly mentions financial help for Ukraine but does not say where the money would come from. However, the counterproposal suggests using frozen Russian assets held in other countries to pay for the damages, providing a clear and practical way to fund reconstruction.