The Zelensky-Trump Meeting

The Zelensky–Trump Meeting: What Is Known After the Talks at Mar-a-Lago

The meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump, held on December 28, 2025, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, has become one of the most significant diplomatic developments at the end of the year in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. According to public statements and reporting by leading international media outlets, the talks focused on a draft framework for a possible settlement, which U.S. and Ukrainian negotiating teams have been discussing intensively in recent weeks. At the same time, both sides acknowledged that a number of critical issues remain unresolved and require political decisions at the highest level.

Below is a comprehensive account of what is currently confirmed, what can be inferred from official language and credible reporting, which elements of the negotiating framework have taken shape, and where uncertainty still prevails.

Venue and Format: Why Mar-a-Lago Matters

The talks did not take place on the margins of an international summit or in a traditional diplomatic capital, but rather at Trump’s private residence in Florida. This choice of venue carries several implications.

First, it provides a tightly controlled communication environment, making it easier to limit leaks and manage the timing and substance of public statements. Second, it underscores Trump’s role as the central political broker in the process: the meeting was organized around his personal political space rather than a multilateral institutional setting. Third, it reflects Trump’s preference for what might be described as “personal diplomacy,” prioritizing direct leader-to-leader engagement over formal, multilateral negotiation formats.

According to multiple reports, the meeting lasted approximately two hours. Following the talks, both sides spoke publicly about progress, but no text of any agreement or joint statement was released.

Broader Context: The Putin Call and the Pressure of War

One of the most discussed elements surrounding the meeting was Trump’s phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier the same day. Trump described the conversation as “good” and “very productive,” while offering no detailed public account of its substance.

The call is significant because it suggests that Washington is attempting to manage the process along at least two parallel tracks — engaging Kyiv and Moscow separately in order to gauge positions and identify potential overlap. For Ukraine, this approach offers both opportunity and risk: the opportunity lies in leveraging U.S. influence on Russia, while the risk stems from long-standing concerns about negotiations involving Moscow without clear Ukrainian guarantees. It is precisely for this reason that, following the meeting, Kyiv emphasized security guarantees and the conditions under which any ceasefire might be implemented.

Another important contextual factor is the situation on the ground. Several media outlets noted that Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure coincided with the diplomatic activity. This combination of military pressure and negotiations reinforces Ukrainian fears that any pause in fighting without firm guarantees could simply allow Russia time to regroup.

The Core of the Talks: A Framework Plan and “Near Completion”

According to reporting by Reuters, Axios, The Washington Post, and other outlets, the centerpiece of the discussion was a draft framework often described as a “20-point plan” for a possible settlement. Publicly cited assessments suggest a high degree of readiness, with some officials referring to the document as being “95 percent complete.”

In diplomatic practice, however, such figures should be interpreted cautiously. The final unresolved issues are typically those that determine whether an agreement is viable at all: territory, security guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability for violations. A framework may be structurally complete while remaining politically unworkable until these core questions are resolved.

The Hardest Issue: Territory and the Future of Donbas

Reuters and other outlets explicitly identified territorial questions — particularly Donbas and other areas claimed by Russia — as among the unresolved “thorny issues.” This is unsurprising. Any formula addressing territory inevitably touches on sovereignty, international law, and domestic political legitimacy in Ukraine.

Trump acknowledged after the meeting that difficult and “complicated” questions remain. Cross-referencing various reports suggests that these remarks were primarily directed at the territorial dimension of the talks and the challenge of designing a ceasefire that does not simply freeze the conflict while implicitly legitimizing gains achieved by force.

Ukraine’s position, as reflected in previous statements and reporting, rests on several core principles: refusal to recognize annexation, resistance to formalizing territorial losses as the price of peace, and insistence on security arrangements that prevent Russia from resuming large-scale aggression in the future. Russia’s position, according to Western media accounts, continues to emphasize control over territories it considers its own. The clash between these positions remains the central obstacle to any settlement.

Security Guarantees: Kyiv’s Central Demand

Following the meeting, President Zelensky stated that security guarantees for Ukraine had been discussed and that progress had been made. Trump likewise spoke of nearing agreement on guarantees. Yet the precise nature of these guarantees remains unclear.

Security guarantees can take several forms.

Political guarantees involve declarations of support, bilateral or multilateral statements, and symbolic commitments. While politically meaningful, such guarantees alone do not deter renewed aggression.

Military-practical guarantees encompass long-term arms supplies, training programs, intelligence cooperation, joint planning, and sustained financial assistance. These measures strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capacity but fall short of collective defense obligations.

Legally binding guarantees involve formal commitments that trigger specific responses in the event of renewed aggression. This is the most robust but also the most politically sensitive option, as it carries escalation risks and domestic political costs for guarantor states.

Media coverage of the meeting highlighted the role of Europe in any future security architecture. Trump publicly stressed that European countries must assume a significant share of responsibility for Ukraine’s security. This can be interpreted as an effort to distribute both the burden and the political risk of long-term commitments.

Demilitarized Zones and International Oversight

Some reports referred to discussions about the creation of a demilitarized zone, potentially administered or monitored by international forces. Such arrangements are often proposed as technical tools to reduce the likelihood of direct clashes and to create a buffer between opposing forces.

Yet implementation raises complex questions: the composition of any international mission, its mandate, rules of engagement, funding, and whether NATO members or neutral states would participate. These details can easily become politically contentious, transforming a technical solution into a new source of disagreement.

Nonetheless, the very fact that such mechanisms are being discussed suggests that negotiators are looking beyond a simple declaration of ceasefire toward a more structured system of control and monitoring.

Ceasefire as a Test of Viability

Public comments following the meeting indicate that a ceasefire is being considered as a possible initial step. For Kyiv, however, the key concern remains unchanged: a ceasefire without a credible enforcement framework risks becoming a temporary pause that benefits the aggressor.

According to The Washington Post, the United States is considering facilitating further negotiations between Ukraine and Russia as early as January 2026. This indicates that the Mar-a-Lago meeting was not an endpoint but rather part of an ongoing process aimed at testing whether a broader negotiation track can be sustained.

Signals After the Talks: Cautious Optimism

Both sides adopted a tone of cautious optimism. Trump spoke about being close to a deal while acknowledging unresolved difficulties. Zelensky emphasized that all key issues were addressed and reiterated the priority of security guarantees.

At the same time, no final document was published, nor was a date announced for signing any agreement. In diplomatic terms, this usually means that progress has been made, but that the most sensitive issues remain under negotiation. Had those issues been resolved, one would expect either concrete parameters to be disclosed or a clear timeline for formalization.

What Remains Unclear

Despite extensive reporting, several fundamental questions remain unanswered:

1. The territorial formula: how lines of control would be defined, whether any political process for disputed regions is envisaged, and which legal formulations might be acceptable to Ukraine and its partners.
2. The binding nature of security guarantees: whether they are political, military-practical, or legally enforceable.
3. Ceasefire enforcement: who monitors compliance, how violations are recorded, and what consequences follow.
4. International missions: their mandate, composition, and authority, if demilitarized zones are established.
5. Russia’s definitive position: engagement through a phone call does not equate to acceptance of specific terms.

What Comes Next

Statements by Trump and reporting in several outlets suggest that January 2026 could see a new round of consultations. Two broad paths appear possible.

One is accelerated coordination between the United States and Ukraine to finalize a common framework, followed by attempts to present it to Russia. The other involves broader consultations with European partners to clarify who is prepared to guarantee security and under what conditions.

In either case, the Mar-a-Lago meeting should be seen not as a conclusion, but as a significant stage in a longer and highly uncertain process. It demonstrated that a negotiating framework exists and is being discussed at the highest level. Whether it can be transformed into a durable mechanism capable of withstanding military and political pressure remains the decisive question.

Sources

1. Reuters — on the Trump–Zelensky meeting, the near-complete framework, unresolved “thorny” issues, and Donbas/territorial questions (December 28–29, 2025).
2. Reuters — on preparations for the meeting and the agenda focusing on territory and security guarantees (December 26, 2025).
3. Reuters — on Trump’s phone call with Vladimir Putin ahead of the meeting with Zelensky (December 28, 2025).
4. Axios — on the Mar-a-Lago meeting, claims of proximity to a deal, and the Putin call (December 28, 2025).
5. The Washington Post — on the talks, remaining obstacles, and U.S. plans to facilitate further negotiations in January (December 28, 2025).
6. ABC News — on the Putin call and the background of Russian strikes preceding the meeting (December 28, 2025).
7. Al Jazeera — on the course of the negotiations and public statements after the meeting (December 28, 2025).
8. The Kyiv Independent — on the timing and closed format of the Mar-a-Лago talks (December 28, 2025).