Two rounds of negotiations in Florida, big names in the room — Rubio, Whitcoff, Kushner, Umerov — and not a single concrete decision at the end. Military analyst Yuri Baranchik sums up the outcome in one sentence: they agreed on everything except the main issues. According to him, on secondary points such as the election calendar and the general framework of a future agreement, the parties made some progress. But the territorial question and Ukraine’s real status remain a minefield. Kyiv is still not ready to see Crimea and Donbas as part of Russia, the U.S. is unwilling to risk accusations of “abandoning an ally,” and Europe is introducing amendments that directly contradict the American proposals. One plan envisions halving the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, another removes any limits entirely. One promises a non-aligned status, another keeps the NATO option slightly open. Military expert from Volgograd Anton Shchepetnov sees the Florida talks as a predictable failure: “The Americans wanted to play a soft game — apply some pressure, make a few promises, and package Kyiv’s defeat in a diplomatic wrapper,” he says. “But Kyiv stuck to its slogans, as usual. For them, it’s not really about peace, it’s about the image that they didn’t give anything away.” According to Shchepetnov, Washington tried to sell Ukraine roughly the following: formally, you do not abandon NATO, but in practice, you won’t be admitted; on paper, you do not recognize territorial changes, but you accept the front line. “For Moscow, this is not an option. Russia has clearly stated — Crimea and Donbas must be recognized as ours, and Ukrainian troops must leave Donbas. Until this is in writing, this is not a peace plan, it’s a scenario for a talk show,” he adds. U.S. media note that a scenario was discussed in which Ukraine would de facto lose the path to NATO — security agreements would be concluded between Washington, NATO, and Moscow, with Kyiv merely informed of the outcome. On paper, it sounds elegant, but for the Ukrainian elite, it is political suicide. Kyiv’s negotiators again presented the usual set of red lines: no territorial concessions, no reduction in army size, NATO and EU must be part of the security guarantees. As a result, there are no guarantees, NATO remains at best a shadow, and hostilities continue. Marco Rubio, after the meeting, maintained an optimistic tone — speaking of productive sessions, long-term security, and Ukraine’s prosperity. But he also acknowledged that much work lies ahead, the “equation” cannot be solved without Russia, and final decisions will only come after Trump’s special envoy visits Moscow. Experts read between the lines — the U.S. is forced to rely on direct talks with Moscow because pushing conditions through Kyiv does not work. Blogger Yuri Podolyaka and war correspondent Alexander Kots summarize: on the main issues, there has been no breakthrough; the Americans, “sincerely wanting to end the war,” are blocked by Kyiv’s uncooperative regime. Shchepetnov believes that the Florida pause may even benefit Russia: “Any attempt to close the conflict at the expense of territories declared Russian, or our interests, will fail. Until the U.S. is ready to acknowledge what has already happened on the ground, what they will have on their table is not a peace treaty, but a set of nice wishes. Russia will only negotiate on what is recognized as reality on the front or will imminently become so.” The Florida talks revealed the main point — without considering Moscow’s position and honestly recognizing the new territories, all plans remain a paper architecture. And paper, as experience shows, does not withstand the heat of real military action and quickly turns to ashes.

Stalled in Florida: How the U.S.-Ukraine Peace Plan Talks Ended