The prospect of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine appears clearer following a phone call between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, Kyiv maintains firm red lines that remain difficult to cross.

On February 12, Trump described his conversation with Putin as “lengthy and productive,” emphasizing that negotiations to end the Ukraine conflict would commence “immediately.” He later spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, stating that “like President Putin, he also wants to establish peace.”

That same day, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to a “sovereign and prosperous” Ukraine. However, he called Kyiv’s goal of restoring its pre-2014 borders “unrealistic” in any potential negotiations. He also suggested that NATO membership for Ukraine was no longer under consideration.

Analysts suggest that recent comments from the Trump administration indicate Ukraine may face pressure to make concessions to Russia in order to achieve a negotiated peace. The key question now is what Kyiv is willing to accept—and where its red lines lie in any talks with Moscow.

Non-Negotiable Red Lines for Kyiv

Despite potential negotiations, Ukrainian officials insist they will not recognize Russian control over occupied territories. Likewise, Moscow has made clear that it will not reverse its annexation of Ukrainian regions in the east and south.

Russia formally annexed Crimea in 2014 and four more regions—Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk—in late 2022. However, it does not fully control all four provinces.

“There are two fundamental issues that are non-negotiable,” said Ukrainian opposition lawmaker Volodymyr Aryev. “First, we cannot accept recognition of Russia’s territorial claims. Second, we cannot accept restrictions on our military—whether in terms of weapons or alliances. These two red lines must be upheld. Other aspects may be negotiable to some extent.”

One of Russia’s demands is the “demilitarization” of Ukraine, meaning a reduction in the country’s military size and weaponry. Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko suggested Ukraine could only consider this if similar restrictions were imposed on Russian forces.

Another major sticking point is NATO membership. While Ukraine has long aspired to join the alliance, the Trump administration’s stance suggests this goal may be sidelined for the foreseeable future.

“The key issue is how to prevent Russia from seizing more Ukrainian territory after a ceasefire agreement,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, head of Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee. “I believe NATO membership is the only real deterrent.”

Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in 2022, and its accession goal is enshrined in the country’s constitution. However, Hegseth’s remarks indicate that this objective is now off the table for the foreseeable future.

“NATO has indefinitely postponed Ukraine’s membership bid,” said Jenny Mathers, an international politics expert at Aberystwyth University in the U.K.

Despite this, Ukrainian officials insist they will not abandon their NATO ambitions. “Joining NATO is a strategic goal, and Ukraine will hold firm on this issue at all costs,” Aryev reiterated.

Merezhko echoed this sentiment: “Under no circumstances should Ukraine abandon its NATO bid, as it is the best guarantee of our security and survival.”

Potential Areas for Concessions

While Kyiv remains firm on territorial sovereignty and military autonomy, some analysts suggest it may be willing to compromise in other areas, such as freezing frontlines and negotiating territorial exchanges.

“A ceasefire along the current frontlines is a possibility. There may be minor adjustments or buffer zones, but major territorial shifts or formal recognition of Russian control are unlikely,” said Stefan Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham.

Zelensky recently proposed swapping Ukrainian-controlled areas in Russia’s Kursk region for Russian-held territories in Ukraine. The Kremlin dismissed the idea, insisting that it would push Ukrainian forces out of all occupied Russian land.

However, experts suggest a territorial exchange involving Kursk and Kharkiv could be a point of discussion.

“The Kursk factor is critical,” said Russian political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. “Ending the conflict while Ukraine still controls Russian land would be unacceptable to Putin.”

Western Security Guarantees in Lieu of NATO

With NATO membership out of reach for now, a potential peace deal may depend on whether Ukraine secures alternative security guarantees from the West.

“There could be a bilateral security agreement with the U.S.,” said Fesenko. “It should be ratified by Congress to become a formal treaty, similar to agreements the U.S. has with Israel and Egypt.”

However, analysts warn that even a defense pact may not provide Ukraine with more than military aid.

On February 11, U.S. Vice President DJ Vance made it clear that American troops would not be deployed to Ukraine, stating that European nations should take responsibility for supporting Kyiv.

As discussions continue, the Munich Security Conference this week is expected to be a key venue where U.S. and Ukrainian officials explore the potential parameters of future negotiations with Russia. However, no matter the diplomatic pressure, Kyiv remains adamant that certain red lines—territorial integrity and military sovereignty—will not be crossed.

(Sources: Kyiv Independent, AFP, The Moscow Times)