An outgoing U.S. envoy for Ukraine under President Donald Trump said that ending the war hinges on two unresolved points. The comment signals a narrow path for diplomacy while fighting and shelling continue in eastern Ukraine. The remarks suggest negotiators may be closer to a framework, but not yet to closure.
“A deal to end the Ukraine war now depended on resolving two main outstanding issues.”
The envoy did not detail the issues. But officials and analysts say peace efforts typically turn on security guarantees and political steps in the conflict zone. Talks have long moved in fits and starts, often stalling over sequencing and trust.
Years of war and incomplete agreements
The conflict began in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the eruption of fighting in the Donbas region. Multiple cease-fires have reduced violence but not ended it. The Minsk agreements set out a process that included a truce, withdrawal of heavy weapons, local elections, and control of the border.
Those steps were meant to move together. In practice, they stalled over who moves first and how compliance is verified. Civilians in frontline towns continue to face danger, economic loss, and displacement.
What the two unresolved issues likely involve
The envoy’s phrase points to familiar sticking points that have hampered every round of talks. While not specified, diplomats often group them into two baskets:
- Security: durable cease-fire, withdrawal of forces, demining, and verified control of the international border.
- Politics: rules for local elections, the legal status of the territories, and amnesty provisions that meet international law.
Kyiv has pushed for secure borders and access for international monitors before any vote. Moscow and its aligned forces have pressed for political concessions in parallel with security steps. The gap is narrow but has proven hard to close.
Signals from negotiators and stakeholders
The envoy’s statement suggests talks are concentrating on a short list. That can focus political will and reduce room for misreading. A European mediator said recently that “verification and sequencing are the heart of the matter,” describing the need for clear timelines and neutral monitoring.
Ukrainian officials have argued that free and fair voting is impossible without safety and media access. Russian officials have argued that political autonomy must be guaranteed in writing. Civil society groups in Ukraine warn that any amnesty must exclude serious crimes.
Humanitarian agencies emphasize protection of civilians. They urge reliable corridors for aid and demining to let families return to homes and fields. Aid groups also track damage to hospitals, schools, and power grids, which can spike when cease-fires fail.
Why this moment matters
Limiting the agenda to “two main issues” can reduce diplomatic friction. It also concentrates pressure on the hardest decisions. If negotiators agree on verification, monitoring, and timelines, momentum could build for broader steps.
But if either side doubts enforcement, even a signed document can falter. Past truces collapsed when artillery fire resumed and monitors faced access limits. The lesson is that text on paper needs real-world checks that all parties accept.
What to watch next
Observers will look for small but concrete steps. These include a sustained cease-fire measured in weeks, consistent access for international monitors, and a public roadmap with dates. They will also watch whether humanitarian projects, such as bridge repairs or water system fixes, proceed without interruption.
Any progress will likely require synchronized actions. That means security moves backed by verified data, and political steps that meet international standards. Without that pairing, mistrust can resurface quickly.
The envoy’s warning captures the moment: the gap may be down to a pair of hard choices. If negotiators reach agreement on those, a wider peace plan could follow. If not, families along the front will face another cycle of uncertainty. The next signals from Kyiv, Moscow, and European capitals will show whether the narrow path is opening or closing.
