In an interview with Beijing News, Maksym Chebotarov, Coordinator of the US-Ukraine Partnership Program at the Transatlantic Dialogue Center (TDC), commented on the lack of breakthroughs surrounding the so-called “Christmas ceasefire” and outlined the significance of the updated 20-point peace plan in the context of ongoing negotiations between Ukraine, the United States, and Russia.
Chebotarov noted that the Miami/Florida talks, despite positive public assessments by the parties as “productive and constructive,” have not generated added value. Earlier, optimistic statements were made by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Ukraine’s chief negotiator Rustem Umerov, and Russian President’s Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Kirill Dmitriev. Chebotarov argues that the current format of negotiations is more akin to shuttle diplomacy, with Washington serving as the primary mediator, while a comprehensive peace settlement remains elusive.
According to Chebotarov, the published 20-point peace plan is a condensed version of previous American proposals and currently serves as a basic framework rather than a full-fledged international agreement. He emphasized that the document is primarily conceptual in nature and requires thorough refinement, particularly with regard to implementation mechanisms and legal validity.
Chebotarov further pointed out that the new version of the plan does not include a requirement to legally enshrine Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO. Meanwhile, there are discussions to include a separate document – an agreement between Russia and the U.S. – that states NATO will no longer expand or invite Ukraine to join. He warned that agreements regarding the deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian territory reached outside the broader consensus of all NATO members may have questionable legal legitimacy.
Chebotarov noted that the “peace plan” is a comprehensive peace process, so it can only be considered an agreement if all issues are agreed upon. As Ukrainian negotiators emphasize, “It was agreed on what had to be agreed on anyway” – that is, the non‑controversial elements like sovereignty recognition, the necessity of a renewed security model for Ukraine. However, there are pressing issues, including the status and practical elements for the Zaporizhzhia NPP operation, the future of Russian frozen assets, the status of the Russian language and church, and many others. Chebotarov paid particular attention to the territorial issue, in particular, Donbas, which remains a key point of contention. He stressed that ideas about a potential free economic zone or demilitarized zones do not yet have agreed parameters and cannot be considered as a basis for a rapid cessation of hostilities.
Chebotarov believes that, judging from the current information released by the Russian side, Russia is likely to continue to fight for territory, which may lead to the continued prolongation of negotiations and diplomatic consultations amidst ongoing military confrontation. This is the so-called “talking while fighting”.
In conclusion, Chebotarov noted that in the absence of agreement on key political issues — primarily territorial settlement and security guarantees for Ukraine — 2026 will most likely be marked by cyclical negotiations and shuttle diplomacy rather than a comprehensive peace agreement.
Read the full article via the link.