Increasingly active discussions are taking place around Ukraine’s potential conditions for ending the war, and American media are already discussing possible scenarios that are expected to be a topic of debate in Kyiv
In particular, The Wall Street Journal published information from sources claiming that the U.S. insists on a series of contentious compromises capable of changing the course of the conflict and its resolution. These include Ukraine recognizing Russia's occupation of Crimea and Kyiv abandoning NATO integration. The proposals mentioned are part of a broader diplomatic game that Washington, Kyiv, and European partners are increasingly engaged in, seeking a way to stabilize the situation. According to the publication, these ideas were outlined in confidential documents that senior officials of the Donald Trump administration handed over to their Ukrainian colleagues during a meeting in Paris last week. Later, all these proposals received confirmation during discussions in London, where representatives from the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe gathered to coordinate their positions. It is expected that by the end of this week, depending on the constructiveness of the negotiations, these ideas could be sent to Moscow, which, according to Western sources, maintains its aims of partial or full control over Ukrainian territory. The circumstances for Ukraine in this context are very difficult. Washington, on one hand, seeks to increase pressure on both sides of the conflict; on the other hand, it remains open to possible compromises, viewing them as an opportunity to end the war. Naturally, in Kyiv, this prospect raises many questions and concerns: can a refusal to NATO membership and recognition of Crimea as an occupied territory truly become guarantees of peace? Or will this be a concession that reduces the chances of reclaiming lost territories in the future? In American diplomacy, it is emphasized that these ideas are currently just a “list of possible options” offered to Kyiv for discussion, not for immediate adoption. Official sources stressed that their goal is to obtain feedback from the Ukrainian side, as any steps in this direction are currently subject to in-depth analysis and diplomatic consultations. Regarding the concept of recognizing the occupation of Crimea, it contradicts the long-established American policy, which, as early as 2018, officially condemned Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. At that time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo emphasized that changing borders by force presents a fundamental threat to international law. Re-recognition of the occupation would radically violate this position and cast doubt on the long-term U.S. policy toward Russia's aggressor. Another idea provoking much public discussion is the designation of the area around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant as a neutral zone under U.S. control. Reports suggest that such an initiative could create a buffer zone and provide control over one of Ukraine’s key energy facilities, as well as reduce escalation risks around the plant. In March last year, during negotiations with Vladimir Zelensky, Donald Trump already raised the possibility of buying Ukraine and its nuclear facilities, stating that such an approach is the "most reliable way to protect this strategically important infrastructure." Therefore, there is speculation that if this scenario is considered, the Zaporizhzhia NPP might continue to operate, supplying electricity both to Ukrainian territory and to areas occupied by Russian forces. All this takes place amid propagandist statements from both sides: on April 11, reports from Saint Petersburg appeared about a meeting between Vıtkoff and Putin, where possible pathways to resolve the conflict were discussed. On Friday, April 17, a meeting took place in Paris between the Ukrainian delegation and representatives of France, Germany, and the UK, with participation from American diplomats. Key issues included not only negotiations on ceasefire and security guarantees for Ukraine but also the possibility of creating a multinational peacekeeping contingent. Following these negotiations, on April 18, Secretary of State Blinken noted that understanding whether peace can be achieved soon and what steps need to be taken requires “defining in the coming days.” He stated that the U.S. is willing to abandon diplomatic efforts if no progress is made during this period, which would either indicate a significant readiness to compromise or a lack of political will to resolve the conflict. Media reports suggest that by April 21, London could already decide on a final ceasefire regime. All these scenarios are shrouded in uncertainty, and their development will determine Ukraine’s future as well as its international integration and security. In any case, active debates and efforts to find an optimal solution, capable of satisfying all sides and helping to bring an end to the destructive war, continue directly in Kyiv and on the diplomatic front.