Lead
On Sunday, Dec. 28, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky flew from missile‑struck Kyiv to Mar‑a‑Lago in West Palm Beach to seek approval from U.S. President Donald Trump for a revised 20‑point peace plan. The two met for more than three hours; neither announced a final agreement, but both described progress and said further talks would follow. Trump spoke earlier the same day with Russian President Vladimir Putin and indicated he expected sustained negotiations involving U.S., Ukrainian and European teams. Officials warned the remaining disagreements are concentrated on a few high‑stakes items and will require Putin’s sign‑on to any durable settlement.
Key takeaways
- The meeting lasted more than three hours at Mar‑a‑Lago on Dec. 28, 2025, with no immediate breakthrough announced.
- Zelensky presented a revised 20‑point peace plan; both leaders and their teams said about 90% of terms are agreed, leaving roughly 10% unresolved.
- Main sticking points include the fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and disputed land concessions in eastern Ukraine.
- Trump phoned Putin for over an hour before meeting Zelensky; U.S. officials said Trump plans further calls with Putin.
- U.S., Ukrainian and European teams led by envoys including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will continue negotiations in coming weeks, potentially in Washington.
- Russia launched fresh missile and drone strikes on Ukraine ahead of the talks, and Kremlin aides say Moscow rejects a ceasefire as a long‑term solution.
- Trump said a clear outcome might emerge “in a few weeks,” while acknowledging the possibility that no deal will materialize.
Background
Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 set off nearly four years of fighting, mass displacement and repeated efforts at mediation by multiple outside parties. Over that period, Western governments have supplied weapons and economic support to Kyiv while seeking to maintain pressure on Moscow; Moscow has pushed territorial demands and strategic guarantees it says are nonnegotiable. Early in his second term, President Trump signaled an interest in brokering a rapid settlement, a promise he has since acknowledged was more difficult in practice than he anticipated.
Meetings between Trump and Zelensky during Trump’s second term have been closely watched for signals about U.S. policy and the prospects for peace. Previous encounters have at times been tense; this session at Mar‑a‑Lago followed a pattern where Trump speaks with Putin ahead of meeting Kyiv’s leader, a sequence that has generated concern among Ukraine’s backers. Zelensky has shown new flexibility publicly, saying he would put boundary changes to a referendum if required by the constitution — but he has insisted a ceasefire would be needed to hold a valid national vote.
Main event
Zelensky arrived at Mar‑a‑Lago aiming to secure Trump’s backing for a revised 20‑point plan that Kyiv and its partners have been negotiating. After more than three hours behind closed doors, both presidents emerged without declaring a signed deal; instead they described constructive, technical discussions and agreed to keep teams working. Trump praised Zelensky’s leadership and said the talks had yielded significant progress over the prior month.
Trump confirmed he had spoken with Putin for more than an hour before the Mar‑a‑Lago meeting and said he planned additional conversations with the Russian leader. Kremlin statements said the U.S. president requested the earlier call; a Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian media that Moscow and Washington “generally share similar views” on limits of a temporary truce. That dynamic — the U.S. president hearing from Putin before meeting Zelensky — has in past instances influenced Washington’s immediate posture toward Kyiv.
Zelensky and his team stated afterward that roughly 90% of the plan’s provisions had been agreed in principle, reiterating a figure U.S. officials have used publicly. Trump said he dislikes relying on percentages but agreed the bulk of the framework has been set, while cautioning that the remaining 10% involves complex, thorny matters. Those unresolved points include security guarantees, the status and safety protocols for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and precise arrangements over territory in Donbas and other contested areas.
Russia launched renewed missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities in the hours before the meeting, and Moscow has refused to accept a ceasefire as part of early negotiations. Trump suggested that some territorial adjustments could be better agreed now than risk being seized in future Russian advances, a line of argument likely to be politically sensitive in Kyiv and among Ukraine’s Western supporters. Zelensky underscored that any territorial changes would need to comply with Ukraine’s constitution and be subject to popular approval.
Analysis & implications
Technically, reporting that 90% of a plan is agreed does not guarantee a deal: the remaining 10% may include the most consequential elements, such as who controls key infrastructure and how to enforce a ceasefire. The Zaporizhzhia plant is both a humanitarian and diplomatic flashpoint: its safety arrangements are central to any truce, and any perceived concession on its status could provoke domestic and international pushback. That makes agreement on nuclear‑safety protocols a potential deal‑breaker even if other provisions are routine.
Putin’s formal assent is likely indispensable. Any peace package that resolves territorial questions in Russia’s favor will require Moscow’s explicit commitment and mechanisms to enforce compliance, or the deal will be fragile. Trump’s repeated phone contact with Putin — and his public remarks portraying Putin as serious about peace — highlight the diplomatic choreography: Washington must bridge Kyiv’s demands and Moscow’s minimum terms while keeping European partners aligned.
Domestically in Ukraine, the prospect of a referendum to ratify boundary changes raises legal and political risks. Ukraine’s constitution requires a vote on territorial changes, but conducting a credible referendum without a widespread ceasefire and clear security arrangements would be difficult. International legitimacy could suffer if any plebiscite is organized under conditions that opponents deem coercive or unfree, complicating post‑agreement stabilization.
For NATO and EU members, a negotiated settlement that stops short of restoring Ukraine’s pre‑2022 borders would pose strategic dilemmas: accept a ceasefire that freezes gains by force or continue military support to try to reclaim territory. Western capitals will watch whether the U.S. — under a president who has sought a rapid resolution — can assemble a plan that satisfies both Kyiv’s sovereignty claims and Moscow’s demands without fracturing allied unity.
Comparison & data
| Metric | Reported value |
|---|---|
| Agreement on plan | ~90% agreed, ~10% unresolved |
| Meeting length | More than 3 hours (Dec. 28, 2025) |
| Key unresolved issues | Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, land concessions (Donbas) |
The numerical framing — 90% agreed — helps explain why both sides described forward movement while stopping short of a deal. Historical patterns show that the final percentage points of large political negotiations often require disproportionate time and new guarantees; if Putin’s agreement is not secured, technical consensus between U.S. and Ukrainian teams may not translate into implementation. Observers will watch the next rounds of technical talks for indicators of whether the unresolved items are solvable by compromise or demand tougher political tradeoffs.
Reactions & quotes
U.S. and Ukrainian leaders used measured public language after the meeting, emphasizing continued work rather than celebrating completion. Officials from European capitals signaled cautious optimism but stressed that details matter.
“I do think we’re getting a lot closer, maybe very close.”
Donald J. Trump, U.S. President
Trump framed the talks as promising while warning a settlement could still fail; his remark reflected his role as broker and his view that additional conversations with Putin are needed.
“About 90% of the terms have been agreed in principle.”
Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine
Zelensky reiterated the 90% figure and emphasized that a valid referendum and a ceasefire would be necessary to finalize territorial adjustments under Ukraine’s constitution.
“A temporary truce will only prolong the conflict,”
Yuri Ushakov, Kremlin aide (paraphrased)
The Kremlin aide’s comment, reported by Russian state channels, signals Moscow’s continued reluctance to endorse a ceasefire as a long‑term solution and frames negotiations around durable political outcomes rather than short pauses in fighting.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will formally sign onto any final peace package or accept specific territorial terms is not confirmed.
- Details of the remaining 10% of the plan — including the exact text covering Zaporizhzhia and border arrangements — have not been publicly released and remain unverified.
- Timelines for a referendum in Ukraine, and whether it could be held under secure, internationally recognized conditions, are uncertain.
Bottom line
The Mar‑a‑Lago meeting on Dec. 28, 2025, was a consequential step in a fragile diplomatic process: it narrowed technical differences but left several pivotal issues unresolved. The public framing of 90% agreement signals substantial overlap on many points, yet the remaining items — nuclear safety, territorial status and enforceable guarantees — are precisely the elements that determine whether an agreement can hold.
Implementation depends on sustained negotiations among U.S., Ukrainian and European teams, and ultimately on Moscow’s willingness to commit. Observers should watch the next few weeks closely: follow‑up talks, any fresh communications between Trump and Putin, and whether ceasefire arrangements can be credibly enforced will determine if the progress described in Palm Beach translates into a durable peace or a temporary lull in a protracted conflict.
Sources
- CNN (U.S. news outlet) — primary reporting on the Mar‑a‑Lago meeting.
- The Kremlin (official Russian government) — statements and summaries of calls with foreign leaders.
- Office of the President of Ukraine (official) — statements and remarks from President Zelensky.