Negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine are „90% complete,” but the real stakes are in the final details, warns former U.S. ambassador to Kiev, Steven Pifer.
In an interview for Kyiv Post, the diplomat argues that the West must not legitimize Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territories and warns that without real pressure on Moscow, any agreement risks being just a pause before a new conflict.
An Almost Finalized Agreement, but with Major Risk
After two and a half days of intense negotiations, American, Ukrainian, and European officials claim there is consensus on about 90% of an agreement that could end the war initiated by Russia. However, the remaining 10% is the most dangerous because it concerns the status of the occupied territories and the post-war security architecture.
"I believe that Ukraine's partners should support Ukraine's position on the occupied territories," says Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Kiev. The West, he warns, must "not agree to recognize that territory as Russian territory."
In his view, an agreement that legitimizes Moscow's territorial gains would not bring peace but would create the conditions for a new war.
A "First Draft" of Peace
The negotiations took place in Berlin, with the participation of President Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, advisor Jared Kushner, President Volodymyr Zelensky, and several European leaders.
Zelensky described the outcome of the discussions as a "first draft," acknowledging progress made but warning that the document still contains problematic elements.
"The military part looks quite solid," said the Ukrainian leader, emphasizing that the parties "have worked very well together," but he cautioned that some "destructive" aspects need to be eliminated. "This matters because dignity matters."
A new round of technical and military discussions is scheduled for this weekend in Miami. The timing of Russia's official return to the negotiating table remains uncertain.
Security Guarantees "Like Article 5," but Without NATO Membership
The central point of the negotiations is Washington's proposal to offer Ukraine security guarantees akin to Article 5, without Ukraine becoming a NATO member.
Specifically, the U.S. and key European allies would commit to defending Ukraine in the event of a new Russian attack – the clearest commitment articulated so far by the Trump administration.
President Trump emphasized from the Oval Office on Monday that he had "numerous conversations with President Putin" and that the parties are closer to an agreement than ever before. "We want to save many lives," said Trump, stating that he enjoys "tremendous support" from European leaders.
At the same time, Trump acknowledged the limits of the negotiations: "They've already lost the territory, to be honest. The territory is lost."
Regarding the security architecture, the U.S. President specified: "We're working with Europe on this... so that the war does not restart."
What Makes Guarantees Credible, in Steven Pifer's View
Steven Pifer argues that the guarantees under discussion are more robust than they seem if implemented as a coherent package. He identifies four essential pillars of deterrence.
The first is building a strong, modern, well-armed Ukrainian army in the long term. "Ideally, Ukraine should have such a strong army that, through its own forces, it can largely deter Russia," says Pifer, referring to scenarios that include a force of up to 800,000 troops.
The second pillar is a European multinational force – a "coalition of the willing" – deployed in Ukraine with American support. "This is the key point the Europeans were waiting for," emphasizes the former diplomat.
The third element would be a monitoring and verification mechanism for the ceasefire, led by the U.S. The fourth pillar is a binding political commitment, which "sounds like Article 5, at the end of the day," conditioned on leaders' willingness to intervene if deterrence fails.
No American Troops on the Ground, but with Decisive Military Support
The absence of American troops on Ukrainian soil has raised skepticism, but Pifer believes this aspect does not automatically weaken the guarantees.
He recalls previous statements by Donald Trump that the U.S. could provide air support to a European force in case of an attack. "If the Europeans had a commitment regarding American air support, that would be quite strong," says Pifer.
In his view, what is essential is that Washington seems willing to provide the ultimate support requested by European leaders, even if the exact details are not yet established.
Not a Definitive Alternative to NATO
The former ambassador rejects the idea that these guarantees would definitively exclude Ukraine from NATO. European leaders continue to insist on Kiev's European and transatlantic future, and the current framework "does not seem to preclude NATO membership at some point."
Meanwhile, commitments made by the U.S., UK, France, Germany, and other major NATO states should not be downplayed. "I don't think you can say that this means nothing," emphasizes Pifer.
The Big Unknown: Will Moscow Accept the Pressure?
For Steven Pifer, the real test is not Ukraine's position but Russia's reaction. He expects Moscow to oppose the negotiated framework in Berlin, especially regarding security guarantees.
This resistance will show whether Donald Trump is willing to support his diplomacy with real pressure. "If he wants his diplomacy to work, he needs to back it up with real leverage," warns the former ambassador.
Among these levers are tougher sanctions, additional arms deliveries, and even the seizure of Russia's central bank assets to fund Ukraine's defense and reconstruction.
"We need to convince him to give up the idea that Russia can win on the battlefield," says Pifer. Only in this scenario would the Kremlin negotiate seriously.
In the absence of such pressure, the diplomat warns, the "90% finalized" peace agreement risks becoming a "100% guarantee of future conflict."