As the war in Ukraine grinds on, the prospect of renewed high-level talks between the United States and Russia has returned to the international spotlight. On November 22, 2025, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov confirmed that a potential summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump remains on the agenda. “I wouldn’t rule anything out,” Ryabkov told the state-owned International Affairs magazine, as reported by Reuters, emphasizing that the “search for a way forward continues.” He further described the progress in building dialogue between Russia and the U.S. as “impressive,” noting that contacts are “yielding results.”
Yet, for all the diplomatic optimism, the reality on the ground and in back rooms remains deeply complex. According to Daily Times and the Associated Press, the most recent face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin took place in Alaska in August 2025. Despite high hopes, the summit ended without any agreement on Ukraine, and a planned follow-up in Budapest was suspended indefinitely. Trump himself later explained from the White House, “We canceled the meeting with President Putin—it just didn’t feel right to me. It didn’t feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get. So I canceled it, but we’ll do it in the future.” Expressing his frustration, Trump added, “In terms of honesty, the only thing I can say is, every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere.”
The lack of progress is not for want of trying. Ryabkov underlined that channels for dialogue between Moscow and Washington remain active and well-established, with both visible and discreet formats functioning. The Kremlin echoed this sentiment, expressing hope that another summit could occur as soon as the necessary preparations are completed. “We are working on an ongoing basis. We have well-established formats and channels. Not all of these channels are visible or audible, not all of them need to be discussed publicly, but the fact remains that everything is in working order,” Ryabkov said in his interview, cited by The Economic Times.
Despite these assurances, the details of any potential agreement remain elusive. The Alaska summit, according to multiple sources including ISW and Axios, featured discussions of a U.S.-proposed 28-point peace plan aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. Putin confirmed that the Kremlin had received a copy of the proposed deal and that Trump had floated the plan before their Alaska meeting. However, the Russian president was quick to reiterate that any peace agreement must address what he called the “root causes” of the war—Kremlin shorthand for Russia’s longstanding demands regarding NATO expansion and the removal of Ukraine’s current government.
Other Russian officials, including Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and lead negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, have been equally firm. They stressed Russia’s commitment to the principles discussed at the Alaska summit but indicated no change in their basic position. In fact, insiders close to the Kremlin, as reported by Russian opposition outlet Verstka, revealed that the 28-point plan is viewed more as a potential basis for future talks than a document Putin would sign in its current form. Concerns cited include objections to proposed security guarantees for Ukraine, the cap on Ukrainian military forces, the method for sanctions relief, and the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine.
Putin’s recent actions have underscored his hardline stance. On November 20, he visited a command post of the Russian Western Grouping of Forces in military uniform, signaling his determination to achieve Russia’s war goals. Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov told Putin that Russian forces would continue their mission to seize the remainder of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts—territories at the heart of Russia’s objectives since the start of the conflict.
Public statements by Russian officials have only reinforced this posture. On November 21, defense committee leaders in the State Duma declared that a peace plan is not in Russia’s interest, given their claimed advances in Ukraine, and insisted that the war can only end with Russia’s “unequivocal victory on the front” and Ukraine’s capitulation. Russian ultranationalists and military bloggers have been even more scathing, criticizing the 28-point plan for demanding that Russia give up its war aims and expressing broad support for continuing the fight.
Meanwhile, the military situation remains fluid and fiercely contested. Russian forces have claimed territorial gains since the Alaska summit, seizing approximately 908 square kilometers—about the area of Berlin—though some of these advances were enabled by seasonal weather that hampered Ukrainian drone operations. Ukrainian forces, however, have counterattacked in key areas such as Pokrovsk, holding defined lines and even making advances in some sectors despite relentless Russian pressure. Reports from both Ukrainian and Russian sources, including geolocated footage and battlefield updates, paint a picture of a front line that is dynamic and interspersed, with neither side able to claim decisive control in several contested regions.
Amid the military deadlock, the proposed peace plan has sparked heated debate. According to Axios, it includes “Article 5-like” security guarantees for Ukraine—referring to NATO’s collective defense clause—but these would only last for ten years and would need renewal. Critics warn that such a time limit would allow Russia to bide its time and strike again once the guarantees expire. The plan’s proposed battle lines would also force Ukraine to withdraw from defensible positions, leaving it vulnerable to renewed Russian aggression.
Despite these concerns, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated a willingness to work with the United States on the proposed peace plan, even though it would require substantial concessions from Ukraine and few from Russia. Ukrainian officials have consistently agreed to ceasefires and prisoner exchanges, demonstrating their openness to compromise. However, the sudden imposition of the plan, with Ukraine given less than a week to respond, has led some to accuse the U.S. of making Ukraine appear to be the obstacle to peace, even as the Kremlin itself expresses deep reservations.
On the international front, Trump has also expressed interest in involving China in nuclear arms reduction efforts alongside Russia and the U.S. Last month, he noted that Putin had raised the prospect of a bilateral nuclear de-escalation that could later include China. Moscow, for its part, remains cautious about expanding these discussions and has not received any formal proposals from Washington for a trilateral meeting.
As the world watches and waits, one thing is clear: the path to peace in Ukraine remains fraught with obstacles, competing interests, and hard-nosed diplomacy. The next move—whether a breakthrough summit or another round of stalemate—will shape the region’s fate for years to come.
