In a dramatic shift that could redefine the future of Eastern Europe, reports have surfaced indicating that the United States is prepared to formally recognize Russia’s control over Crimea and significant parts of eastern and southern Ukraine as part of a proposed peace agreement to end the ongoing war. This move, which would upend longstanding U.S. diplomatic policy, has sent shockwaves through European capitals and raised urgent questions about the fate of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the broader balance of power on the continent.
According to The Telegraph, President Donald Trump has dispatched peace envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to Moscow to present this proposal directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The decision comes at a critical juncture, with the war grinding on and casualties mounting. European partners, however, are reportedly alarmed by Washington’s direction and feel increasingly sidelined in the negotiations. One source familiar with the talks told The Telegraph, “It’s increasingly clear the Americans don’t care about the European position. They say the Europeans can do whatever they want.”
The core of the U.S. proposal centers on the legal recognition of Crimea, as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as Russian territory—a demand that Putin himself underscored as central to any peace initiative when speaking on November 28, 2025. The Kremlin confirmed that it had received a revised U.S. framework following urgent consultations between American and Ukrainian officials in Geneva the previous weekend. The first version of the plan reportedly included U.S. “de facto” recognition of Crimea and the occupied areas of the Donbas, and even suggested acknowledging Russian control behind the front lines in parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia after any cease-fire. Subsequent negotiations in Switzerland narrowed the proposal from 28 to 19 points, making the terms less advantageous for Moscow, but, according to several sources, the recognition of seized territory remains very much on the table.
Meanwhile, the most divisive elements of the U.S. plan—including the ultimate fate of the occupied regions—would be left to direct, face-to-face talks between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. However, there is currently no confirmed date for Zelenskyy’s visit to meet with Trump, leaving the issue hanging in the balance. The uncertainty has only added to the anxiety felt by European governments, who have repeatedly rejected any settlement that would validate land grabs by force. Following a meeting of coalition partners supporting Kyiv on November 27, the group reaffirmed that borders “must not be changed by force,” calling the principle essential to global stability. Notably, a European alternative peace proposal has deliberately excluded any recognition of Russian territorial control.
Adding to the complexity, a new Russian national security strategy released by the Kremlin outlines plans to fully integrate the occupied Ukrainian areas within ten years—even though Russian forces have never fully captured Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, or Zaporizhzhia. This long-term vision underscores Moscow’s determination to cement its hold on these regions, regardless of the situation on the ground.
On the Ukrainian side, there is staunch resistance to any suggestion of territorial concessions. Before resigning on November 29, 2025, after an anti-corruption raid, Andriy Yermak—previously President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff and lead negotiator—made Kyiv’s position crystal clear. “As long as Zelensky is president, no one should count on us giving up territory,” he stated. “The constitution prohibits this.” Yermak’s departure adds another layer of uncertainty, but his words reflect a broad consensus within Ukraine’s political establishment.
Behind the scenes, the negotiations have also been marked by intrigue and controversy. Leaked phone calls revealed Witkoff advising Russian officials on how to appeal to Trump’s team, including emphasizing potential Ukrainian concessions on Donetsk. These revelations have sparked questions about the nature and transparency of the ongoing contacts. The White House, for its part, has urged caution. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt warned, “Any reporting about these sensitive diplomatic conversations should be deemed speculative until it comes directly from the president or his national security team.”
But the political maneuvering over territory is only part of the story. According to The Wall Street Journal, the peace talks are deeply entwined with economic ambitions that stretch far beyond the battlefield. In October 2025, three powerful businessmen—two Americans and a Russian—met in Miami Beach to draft not only a plan to end Russia’s war with Ukraine, but also a roadmap to reintegrate Russia’s $2 trillion economy with the global market. The goal, insiders say, is to ensure that American businesses are first in line to reap the dividends of renewed economic ties with Russia, outpacing their European competitors.
This economic angle has raised eyebrows in Europe, where officials worry that the U.S. may be prioritizing its own commercial interests over the security and sovereignty of Ukraine—and, by extension, the stability of the continent. The talks reportedly went well beyond peace negotiations, focusing on how to position American firms to benefit most from any post-war opening of the Russian market. For many European leaders, this is a bitter pill to swallow, especially after years of coordinated sanctions and diplomatic efforts aimed at holding Moscow accountable for its aggression.
As the diplomatic chess game unfolds, European governments are growing increasingly concerned that Kyiv could ultimately be pressured into accepting a deal that falls short of its core demands. The fear is that, faced with the combined weight of U.S. and Russian pressure—and with the promise of lucrative economic rewards for American companies—Ukraine could be left with little choice but to acquiesce to the loss of significant territory. This, critics warn, would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future land grabs by force and undermining the post-World War II international order.
Yet, amid the swirl of negotiations, leaks, and speculation, the official U.S. line remains one of cautious ambiguity. The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the details of the reported proposals, emphasizing instead the sensitivity of the ongoing diplomatic conversations. As Press Secretary Leavitt put it, the world will have to wait for definitive word from the president or his national security team before drawing firm conclusions.
For now, the fate of Ukraine—and the shape of the postwar world—hangs in the balance. With high-stakes talks continuing behind closed doors, and with powerful economic interests jockeying for position, the coming months could prove decisive. Whether the eventual peace will be just, lasting, and broadly accepted, or whether it will leave deep divisions and lingering resentments, remains to be seen.
In this moment of uncertainty, one thing is clear: the decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv over the next weeks and months will reverberate far beyond the borders of Ukraine, shaping the future of Europe and the global order for years to come.
