I’m going to explain how talks over occupied Ukrainian territories are the central obstacle, show what leaders are saying about referendums and economic zones, spotlight President Trump’s mediating role and the draft 20-point plan, highlight Moscow’s posture on the battlefield, and note the attacks that keep pressure on any deal.
The dispute over occupied territories is the headline issue between Kyiv and Moscow, and it is shaping whether a negotiated end to the war is possible. President Donald Trump has stepped into a broker role and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, signaling high-level momentum. Zelenskyy told Bret Baier that a peace deal with Moscow could be near, suggesting both sides are testing the edges of compromise.
“Even with one question today, we’ve been very close,” Zelenskyy told Baier on “Special Report.” “I think we have a problem with one question: It’s about territories.” Those two lines capture the tightrope: everything else may be sortable, but land that changed hands in war is the live wire. From a Republican perspective, that means negotiations must be tough, clear, and tied to real security guarantees rather than wishful thinking.
Russian officials continue to press their case and portray battlefield leverage as a bargaining chip. Sergei Lavrov has said the West needs to accept that Russia holds advantages on the battlefield, and Moscow’s rhetoric reflects that posture. Republicans arguing for firm American negotiating leverage see this as proof that any settlement must balance real deterrence with diplomatic pressure.
Zelenskyy has been careful about ceding ground outright, and he has floated voter approval as the mechanism to give any concession legitimacy. He has proposed that Ukrainian voters would need to approve withdrawals from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia via referendums. That approach gives Ukraine a democratic cover for painful choices while keeping international observers focused on process and verification.
“I think the compromise, if we do a free economic zone that we have, and we have to move some kilometers back. It means that Russia has to make minor steps some kilometers back,” Zelenskyy said. “This free economic zone will have specific rules. Something like this referendum is the way how to accept it or not accept it.”
Even with those openings, Zelenskyy makes clear he doubts Vladimir Putin’s intent, and Republicans hear that as a cautionary note about trusting Moscow. “I don’t trust Putin. He doesn’t want success for Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said. “I believe he can say such words to President Trump… but it’s not true really.” The blunt language underlines the political reality: talks can proceed, but Western and Ukrainian leaders must assume Moscow will push for maximum leverage.
Despite the skepticism, Zelenskyy reported progress after the Mar-a-Lago meeting, saying they were 90% agreed on a draft 20-point plan. President Trump has framed his role as getting the two sides to a deal, and he has indicated he will only move forward at certain milestones, insisting on clear outcomes before elevating meetings. That pragmatic posture appeals to conservative voters who want a results-oriented approach instead of endless diplomacy without teeth.
At the same time, the fog of war keeps shifting the equation. The meeting followed a Russian attack on Kyiv, and Moscow also claimed that Putin’s home in the Novgorod region was hit by a drone, which Ukraine denies. Those incidents keep pressure on negotiators and underscore that any peace must be credible on the ground, with verification mechanisms that actually prevent renewed aggression.
