Where is the peace after crazy diplomacy?

Are we closer to peace in Ukraine?

After days of frantic, often confusing diplomacy, Donald Trump seems to think so.

“We are very close to reaching a deal,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky struck a grim tone and tone over the weekend, saying there were now “many prospects for making the path to peace a reality.”

“Significant results have been achieved, but much remains to be done,” he said after reviewing the results of key discussions held in Geneva on Sunday.

But aside from some disgruntled complaints about European involvement and unauthorized leaks, Russians have reacted somewhat mutedly.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said on Wednesday that Moscow was positive about some elements of the latest draft but that “many elements require special discussions among experts.”

Separately, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said it was “too early” to consider a deal.

Given that Ukraine and Russia disagree on a number of key issues — including territory, NATO membership, who should pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction and how to hold those involved in war crimes accountable — it’s difficult to see all the necessary pieces falling into place anytime soon.

Last Wednesday seems like a long time ago. It was then that a draft of America’s 28-point plan to end the war was first leaked.

The plan, which referred to Ukraine giving up territory and limiting the size of its military, leading some to describe it as a “Russian wish list,” has caused alarm in Kiev and prompted European diplomats to scramble to limit the perceived damage.

In some ways, this feels like a repeat of the events of August, when the U.S. president rolled out the red carpet to Putin in Alaska and anxious European leaders rushed to Washington to surrender to Trump.

By the end of the week, the Europeans had drafted an equally long 28-point counter-proposal that replaced the blunt territorial concessions in the U.S. plan with “territorial exchange negotiations” and reinforced the security language that was Kiev’s main concern.

But it remains unclear how much influence Europeans will have over Sunday’s talks in Geneva.

After the talks, the United States and Ukraine issued a joint statement, speaking of “productive” discussions and saying any future deal must achieve a “sustainable and just peace.”

Sir Keir Starmer is one of several European leaders who have seized on the words “sustainable and just” to show that progress has been made.

Ukrainian officials also sounded relieved. First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergiy Kyslytsya said the latest version of the plan had been pared down to just 19 points, with the most contentious issues – territory and Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO – delaying decisions by Trump and Zelensky.

Amid accusations of how the original 28-point version was leaked, the latest version is shrouded in a tight veil of secrecy.

Although the talks in Abu Dhabi involved U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll (a new member of Trump’s Ukraine team), Ukraine’s military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov and Russian officials, Ushakov said the plan had not yet been discussed in detail.

With Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkov arriving in Moscow next week and Zelensky rumored to be visiting the White House again, the pace of diplomacy does not appear to be slowing down.

But where are we?

“We are now on a path of rapid development,” said Daniel Fried, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

“I can’t say whether it was a failure or a quick success, but it was going fast.”

Ambassador Fried said the United States’ 28-point plan last week was “a mess,” but the impetus behind it was real.

“To its credit, the Trump administration is working hard to push for solutions.”

The sense of fear that gripped Kiev last week – which led Zelensky to believe Ukraine was facing one of the most difficult moments in its history – has dissipated.

“In Geneva, the Ukrainian delegation is very satisfied,” Miroslava Gongadze, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said in Kyiv.

“The purpose of this exercise is not entirely to reach an agreement, but to throw out the 28-point plan, to interest Ukraine in possible negotiations and to show that Ukraine is indeed willing to discuss and negotiate.”

But if Kyiv thinks it has successfully dealt with some of the worst demands — and we still don’t know how many — there are plenty of lingering concerns.

Chief among them: What kind of security guarantees can it expect if it finally reaches a deal with a country that has invaded its territory unprovoked and still seems to covet more?

“The basic question we have to ask here is safety and security,” Gongadze said. “Who will provide these guarantees, who will be held accountable, which borders will not be violated?

“If the answer is weak, then Ukraine will be plunged into another crisis.”

Responding to the rather vague pledge in the original US document to provide “reliable security guarantees”, European leaders said the US guarantee “reflects Article 5”, a reference to NATO’s collective defense principle.

Last week, the Axios news website reported that the United States had submitted a separate document to Ukraine outlining “security assurances modeled on the principles of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, adapted to the circumstances of this conflict.”

This key aspect of the plan is clearly still a work in progress. After a virtual meeting of the British-French-led coalition of the willing on Tuesday, participants agreed with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “accelerate joint work with the United States and advance security planning.”

Sir Keir Starmer has said plans for a multinational “guaranteed force” operation against Ukraine are fully formed but will remain largely theoretical until the Trump administration says what back-up, if any, it is willing to provide.

“Security must be strengthened,” Ambassador Fried said.

“A coalition of the willing is a good idea, but nothing has come of it so far, partly because they are waiting to see if the Americans will support them and partly because they are waiting to see what they are going to do.”

Where we are in the territory is another great unknown.

Last week’s 28-point plan bluntly stated that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be “recognized as de facto Russia” and that Ukrainian troops would withdraw from the hotly contested Donetsk region under Kiev’s control.

All these languages ​​were lost in the European counter-proposal. The statement said Ukraine would commit “not to recover its occupied sovereign territory through military means.” All territorial negotiations will “begin from the line of contact,” the current front line, the statement said.

It is unclear to what extent Europe’s approach influenced the documents released after the Geneva talks.

The U.S.-Ukraine joint communique offered only an indirect insight, saying both sides “reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

The word “perfect” seems to carry a lot of weight.

Given Trump’s erratic approach to the Ukraine war, Putin’s lingering ambitions and Zelensky’s domestic difficulties — this round of diplomacy comes amid a corruption scandal that is damaging his domestic standing — it’s hard to know where this process will go next.

But it may be overly optimistic to think we are near the end.

“We’re still in the middle of this process,” said Leslie Scheider, another nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“Of course there’s still a long way to go.”

But despite the apparent confusion surrounding the Trump administration’s efforts, including an ever-changing and potentially competing cast of figures, Shedd thinks the administration is serious.

“It appears that the president … does prioritize finding peace in Ukraine. I think that’s actually very important.”