• U.S. officials believe Russia will ultimately accept U.S.-backed security guarantees as part of a final Ukraine peace settlement, even as Moscow publicly rejects key elements of current draft plans.
  • The 28-point peace framework includes conditional security guarantees for Ukraine, compensation to the U.S. for providing the guarantee, and specific triggers for its revocation.
  • Negotiations are tightly linked to the fate of the New START treaty, with Russia proposing a one-year voluntary extension of its limits if the U.S. reciprocates, connecting broader strategic stability to the post-war order.

Behind closed doors, U.S. negotiators are increasingly confident that Russia will accept a bespoke security guarantee arrangement for Ukraine as part of a final peace deal, according to people familiar with the discussions. This comes despite Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's recent public rejection of major parts of the U.S. 28-point peace framework, including territorial swaps and some security-guarantee provisions.

Analytical work on the talks indicates that a core issue is structuring long-term security guarantees for Ukraine in a way that Russia can accept without formal NATO enlargement. This likely involves U.S.–Russia working groups and carefully defined limits on forces and weapons, sources say. The guarantees under discussion are not full NATO Article 5 membership but a conditional regime with joint mechanisms to monitor compliance.

"What we're seeing is Moscow posturing publicly while privately acknowledging the need for a workable solution on security," said one European diplomat briefed on the negotiations, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The devil is in the details—how you define triggers, compensation, and enforcement without escalating tensions further."

Efforts to bridge differences have hit a snag over territorial terms, but U.S. officials suggest the security component presents a plausible landing zone. The U.S. framework includes conditions under which Ukraine would lose its guarantee, such as if it invaded Russia, and provisions for compensation to the U.S. for providing the guarantee. European actors have pushed an alternative design featuring a joint security task force including the U.S., Ukraine, Russia, and Europeans, reflecting concerns about being sidelined and enforceability.

Parallel to this, strategic arms control is at an inflection point. New START's expiration in February 2026 and Russia's offer of a one-year voluntary extension frame the Ukraine settlement within a larger debate over U.S.–Russia nuclear stability. U.S. experts note that any Ukraine deal will intersect with the fate of New START, the last remaining U.S.–Russia strategic arms control agreement. Russia has linked broader strategic stability to the post-Ukraine-war order, with its extension proposal seen as a negotiating signal.

In Ukraine, officials have been cautious in their public statements, emphasizing that any guarantees must be credible and enforceable. "We cannot repeat the mistakes of the Budapest Memorandum," a Ukrainian government advisor said, referencing the 1994 agreement that provided political assurances but failed to deter Russian invasions. Analysts argue that the failure of those earlier assurances is driving the push for more concrete guarantees today.

Market implications are already being weighed. A credible final deal with security guarantees would reduce war-related uncertainty in energy, grain, and defense markets, potentially easing commodity price volatility that has affected Europe and global food importers. However, any settlement that leaves large reconstruction needs in Ukraine implies sustained Western financial commitments and continued sanctions pressure on Russia, maintaining long-term distortions in European energy and investment flows.

Short term, negotiations will likely focus on narrowing differences over territory, force deployments, and the precise legal status and triggers of guarantees. U.S. officials' belief that Russia will "accept guarantees" suggests Washington expects Moscow to trade some political symbolism for tangible limits on NATO's military posture around Ukraine. Without a deal, analysts warn of a high risk of renewed conflict and accelerated proliferation, as other states draw lessons about the inadequacy of non-binding assurances.

Long term, a settlement that includes acceptable guarantees could become a foundation for re-engaging on broader strategic stability, including a follow-on to New START and constraints on missile defense and new nuclear systems. Experts stress that ending the Ukraine war and stabilizing U.S.–Russia nuclear relations are now tightly linked, and that any final deal's security-guarantee provisions will strongly shape Europe's security order for decades.

Attempts to reach the Russian Foreign Ministry for comment were not immediately successful. The U.S. State Department declined to provide specifics but reiterated its commitment to a "just and durable peace" in Ukraine.