For months, the Trump administration has advanced a simple formula for ending the war in Ukraine: Kyiv must concede territory in exchange for American security guarantees. As JD Vance put it in August 2025, “the Ukrainians want security guarantees, and the Russians want… territory.” This trade-off remains at the centre of US efforts to mediate a peace deal.

In recent rounds of talks with the Ukrainian delegation, Washington has reportedly continued to make future US security commitments contingent on Kyiv’s withdrawal from Donetsk, believing that this could secure a peace deal. But this framework will ultimately fail, as it fundamentally misunderstands the role that territory plays in the current conflict. Instead, the Trump administration should focus on the war’s root cause, if any ceasefire is to be realistically achieved.

Though some in the administration, such as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, have suggested it is the one issue holding up a peace deal, Russia has never seen this war as being primarily about territory. A withdrawal from Donetsk is instead a symbolic victory for Moscow that would signal Ukrainian capitulation and surrender. This would serve as a tacit admission that Russia has “won” the war, handing a political victory to President Vladimir Putin.

A further problem, though, is that Ukraine’s territorial concession would not mark the end of the conflict. Senior Russian officials have repeatedly made clear that Ukraine’s withdrawal from Donetsk is a precondition for starting negotiations and would not guarantee the end of the war. After Kyiv cedes the rest of Donetsk, an emboldened Moscow hopes negotiations will move on to other topics including the size of Ukraine’s military, its non-aligned status with Nato, ties to Europe, and the protection of Russian language. In this sense, the concession of Donetsk would be the precondition to later outlining the true causes of the war.

Importantly, the security guarantees offered by the US or Europe would almost certainly be litigated during this round of discussions, as Russia would have a stronger battlefield advantage through control over Donetsk. Understanding this, Ukraine’s leaders can never accept a “territory for security guarantees” bargain, especially one which requires them to give up the land first and receive security promises later.

Certainly, Ukraine’s leaders hope to avoid a further shrinking of the country’s borders. But they might ultimately accept such a loss if they could be assured that Russia would not attack again in the future. Ukrainian integration into Europe’s sphere of influence, once and for all, would also be a safe guarantee. Questions about the credibility of US and European promises to Ukraine and distrust of Russia, however, make such assurances impossible. Kyiv is right to fear that it could give up valuable territory, the so-called “fortress belt”, and be left with nothing in return.

US negotiators will need a new strategy to bring the current war to a close, one which stops putting territory at the centre of peace talks and instead focuses on security. These would include topics such as how Ukraine’s non-aligned status will be formalised, what its post-war military might look like, and how the United States and Europe can credibly commit to end Nato’s eastward expansion.

Moscow may resist talks on these topics with the territorial issue still unresolved, but here Washington has two advantages. Firstly, the US has things Russia wants — normalised ties and sanctions relief — which Ukraine cannot give. Secondly, Putin hopes to avoid provoking Donald Trump into inflicting new penalties on Russia.

To be sure, such a reorientation will reveal that peace is not close. This is unfortunate, but it’s also the reality.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---