Why Ukraine and the U.S. Are Talking Peace Amid Continued Fighting

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke by phone with President Donald Trump and his team of envoys — including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — on February 25, 2026, to discuss ending Russia's war in Ukraine. The main topic was security guarantees: promises of protection that would apply after any peace deal. According to the Ukrainian presidential office's statement, this question has become central to any possible settlement.

The timing was striking. On the same day Kyiv and Washington were talking, Russia launched a massive attack: 420 drones and 39 missiles hit Ukrainian territory, according to AP News. This pattern — intense diplomacy happening at the exact moment of intense bombardment — has happened repeatedly throughout the war. It shows that Ukraine is under pressure from two directions at once: at the negotiating table and from the sky.

How the Talks Are Structured

The February 25 call was not a one-time event. It was the latest step in a series of conversations that sped up in late 2025 and continues into 2026. According to AP News, the U.S. has been pushing harder to end a war that has now lasted nearly four years.

A new format for talks was announced in December 2025. On December 20, Zelenskyy confirmed that Washington proposed a plan that would bring American envoys and possibly European representatives to the table alongside Russia and Ukraine — different from earlier talks that involved only two sides. Reuters reported this at the time.

A few days earlier, on December 14, Zelenskyy signalled something important: Ukraine might be willing to set aside its goal of joining NATO during peace negotiations, Reuters reported. This was a significant shift. It didn't mean Ukraine would abandon Europe forever, but it meant NATO membership would not block the talks. That could make room for other kinds of security promises that Russia might find more acceptable.

By January 24, 2026, Zelenskyy called the discussions between Russian and American representatives "constructive," according to AP News. He was careful not to oversell progress, but he didn't close the door either.

Europe's Role

While the U.S. was leading diplomatic efforts, Zelenskyy also met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to make sure Europe was part of the conversation. According to the Ukrainian presidential office, this happened in late December 2025. They discussed how to coordinate security guarantees and align European positions.

This coordination matters because European countries — France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others — have their own concerns. They worry about whether a peace deal might freeze the fighting in place or allow Russia to keep conquered territory. The talks between Rutte and Zelenskyy were partly about making sure Europe's voice stayed heard as the U.S. moved forward with negotiations.

This has happened before in history. In the 1990s, when the U.S. helped negotiate peace in Bosnia, American diplomats moved quickly while Europe worked more slowly to reach agreement. The risk was that a deal struck in Washington might not hold together because Europeans didn't fully support it. Right now, there is a similar risk — which is why Ukraine and Europe are working hard to stay coordinated.

The Main Unresolved Question: How Much Protection?

The February 25 call brought up security guarantees again — but this term can mean many different things. It could be a promise from the U.S. alone, a binding agreement signed by multiple countries, or stationing European soldiers in Ukraine to prevent Russian aggression. Each option has different strengths and different political obstacles.

When Zelenskyy stepped back from demanding NATO membership, he opened the door to other forms of protection. Instead of trying to get all NATO members to agree — something that takes a very long time — he could pursue faster security promises from specific countries.

But what counts as true protection is still unclear. Russia says it does not want any Western military arrangement around Ukraine. The U.S. and Europe have not publicly agreed on what binding promises they would actually make. The February 25 call shows that Trump's team is actively discussing this — but there is a big gap between talking about security guarantees and actually putting them in place in a way that is legally binding and cannot be easily broken.

Russia Keeps Fighting While Talking

The Russian attack on February 26 — with hundreds of drones and missiles — is a reminder of something consistent about Russia's behavior: it maintains military pressure during diplomacy, and sometimes increases it. It is unclear whether this is Russia's military strategy, whether commanders are simply following old battle plans, or whether Moscow is trying to strengthen its position at the negotiating table.

What is clear is that Ukraine must do two hard things at the same time: protect its cities and people from bombardment, and navigate one of the most complex peace negotiations of the war. Ukraine's ability to do both is not endless. The fighting in the sky directly affects Kyiv's position in the talks — which is why security guarantees are not just abstract ideas, but urgent needs.

What Happens Next

The February 25 call did not produce a public peace agreement, a ceasefire schedule, or announced security promises. What it did produce was ongoing, serious conversation between Kyiv and the Trump administration's envoys, with protection guarantees on the agenda.

In the coming weeks, a critical question will be how much Europe is actually part of these talks, rather than simply told about them afterward. The meetings between Rutte and Zelenskyy suggest both sides care about this. But the U.S. tends to move faster than European institutions, which can create tension.

Here is the real gap to watch: it is not between Washington and Kyiv, where talks are happening and seem substantive. The gap is between what the U.S. negotiators can agree to and what American institutions, European governments, and legal frameworks can actually enforce and guarantee over time. A deal struck between envoys that countries' parliaments won't approve, that cannot be legally enforced, or that allies won't back up is not really a deal at all.