What are the options for peace in Ukraine?
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s have both said any ceasefire between their two countries must lead to a lasting peace.
Ukraine has not long marked three years of war, in which hundreds of thousands have died or been injured on both sides, according to the respective authorities.
Follow our live blog for the latest updates about the Ukraine war
The Kremlin’s annexation of more Ukrainian territory during its invasion – which it still calls a “special military operation” -and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s determination to uphold its sovereignty has left many analysts doubtful the war will ever end.
But since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has demanded the two sides “make a deal”, withdrawing vital US support to Kyiv until it agreed to come to the negotiating table.
Mr Zelenskyy has now agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, with Mr Trump due to iron out Russia’s demands in a phone call with Mr Putin on Tuesday.
But beyond that – what would a Ukraine without fighting look like? Here we go through some of the options.
Ongoing ceasefire
Beyond the initial 30-day agreement, providing neither side violates it, the ceasefire could continue indefinitely.
“A ceasefire can go on to be an enduring thing,” Dr David Blagden, associate professor in international security and strategy at the University of Exeter, tells Sky News.
He gives the example of North and South Korea, whereby a demilitarised zone (DMZ) has effectively served as a border between the two countries since the Korean War ended in 1953.
“Even if it doesn’t ever lead to a more satisfactory settlement, it might still be better for both parties than endless conflict,” he says.
But any kind of DMZ would require both Ukraine and Russia to pull their troops away from the frontline, which is unlikely, adds Dr Huseyn Aliyev, senior lecturer in East European studies at the University of Glasgow.
A map shows how much of Ukraine Russia controls
Parts of Ukraine become ‘New Russia’
The alternative would be for both Ukraine and Russia to offer concessions to formally end the war.
Top of Vladimir Putin’s “list of demands” for “long-term peace”, and his justification for invading Ukraine in the first place, is Crimea – and four other regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia – becoming part of a ‘New Russia’, as they were before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
A Russian flag flies in the occupied town of Avdiivka, Donetsk. Pic: Reuters
Read more
Up to 30 countries to be part of Ukraine coalition
Which infrastructure could be part of a deal?
While Luhansk is almost completely under Russian control, Ukraine still holds significant parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, making them more difficult for Kyiv to let go of.
“We know neither Crimea nor the Donbas regions [Donetsk and Luhansk] would be returned [to Ukraine] as part of a truce,” Dr Aliyev says. “So it would involve ceding control over those parts.
“But Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are more complicated – especially Kherson – as Kherson city was so painfully liberated by Ukraine in 2022.”
Although many doubt Russia would stop there in terms of territory, Dr Blagden adds: “There would be Russian rationale for being content with what they already have. It’s been hugely costly for them – and destroyed a lot of their expensively modernised military. It’s also filtered through into Russian civilian life, to an extent, via the sanctions and casualties, despite the Kremlin’s efforts to insulate Russia’s upper and middle classes from the worst of the war.
“Likewise, for Ukraine – galling and unfair though it may be – there’s likely now more recognition that retaking lost ground will be desperately hard, especially without assured supplies of US weaponry and intelligence. So, they could have reason to live with some sort of ceasefire too.”
Power plants and infrastructure split
Mr Trump has said his team has already proposed “dividing up certain assets” between the two countries – namely “land and power plants” – and will discuss the details with Mr Putin in a phone call on Tuesday.
He did not give any specifics, but these are likely to include the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which has been occupied by Russia since March 2022, and is one of the largest in the world.
Other key infrastructure that could come under Moscow’s control includes the Nova Kakhovka dam, blown up in 2023 and not yet rebuilt, and other river crossings.
A Russian soldier guards the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in 2022. File pic: AP
Zelenskyy replaced
A truce would also likely include a new leader for Ukraine. Mr Zelenskyy has already told Sky News he is open to stepping down if it means Ukraine can join NATO.
One of Mr Putin’s demands is that Ukraine is never allowed NATO membership – but replacing Mr Zelenskyy could still serve to appease him – and Donald Trump, who has called him a “dictator” and accused him of “gambling with World War Three”.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a tense exchange with Donald Trump at the White House. Pic: Reuters
“It would be easier for Zelenskyy to call an election and have somebody replace him,” Dr Aliyev says. “But there’s a problem of who that would be – as there’s not much left of the Ukrainian opposition.”
Contenders include Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Valerii Zaluzhnyi – or one of the generals currently in charge of the military, he adds.
But the Kremlin would prefer a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv, according to Dr Blagden.
“Short of being able to conquer the whole country, a government that’s more favourable towards Russian interests would obviously be their preference,” he says.
“Similar to the one they’ve worked hard to install in Georgia, they might hope for the return of Ukraine’s more pro-Russian politicians and sentiment from before 2014. But of course, Ukrainian opinion is now galvanised against anyone seen as a puppet of Moscow.”
‘Minor concessions’ for Ukraine
Although Russia’s demands would mean a series of heavy blows for Ukraine, there could be some “minor concessions”, security and defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke says.
US national security adviser Mike Waltz has said Ukraine would get “security guarantees” if it agrees to cede territory – but has not specified what they would be.
Other possible concessions include the return of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children who were abducted and forcibly resettled in Russia – and prisoners of war on both sides.
In principle, if a truce was agreed, the International Criminal Court could also begin an investigation into whether war crimes were committed on either side.
“In these situations where there’s a fundamental disagreement and you can’t see the way forward, you often concentrate on some of the minor details,” Professor Clarke says.
Starmer’s ‘coalition of the willing’
Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have spearheaded the idea of a so-called “coalition of the willing” to uphold a potential truce or ceasefire.
Sir Keir’s team says “more than 30” countries are interested in contributing to the peacekeeping force – but the US has been notably absent from leaders’ meetings so far. Vladimir Putin has also said he would not accept NATO forces in Ukraine, posing a major obstacle to the plans.
The prime minister has not specified how the coalition would work but said that military chiefs would meet to discuss the “operational phase” on Thursday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What could a peacekeeping force actually do?
Lower risk option
According to the experts, the coalition could take two potential forms.
Neither would involve guarding the entire frontline. That’s because, at 640 miles long, it would require more than 100,000 troops at a time – and 300,000 with rotations.
A map shows the frontline of fighting in Ukraine
By contrast, the first option would be stationing troops away from the line of control, largely in western Ukraine – or at key infrastructural sites or transport hubs to ensure they continue running smoothly.
This would be a similar operation to the British one in Estonia – where 900 troops are stationed to deter Russian aggression. The Ukrainian one would involve up to 30,000 personnel and be focused primarily on monitoring, logistics, and training, the experts say.
A British paratrooper and helicopter in Estonia in May 2024. Pic: Reuters
“The challenge for any peacekeeping force is balancing effectiveness and escalatory risk,” Dr Blagden adds.
“Calling it a ‘peacekeeping’ force might create the impression of neutrality. But of course, it wouldn’t be neutral – they’re there to defend one of two sides. It would be better understood as a garrison whose job would be to ensure that Russia can’t attack Ukraine without attacking NATO troops, and therefore risking a wider war with nuclear-armed powers,” he says.
“A larger combat force closer to the frontline would create more deterrence but with more escalatory risk – whereas a smaller force further from the frontline – perhaps merely fulfilling training and support tasks – would carry much less escalatory risk but therefore also be much less of a deterrent”.
Ordinarily, that deterrent would be hugely bolstered by the US, which under NATO’s Article 5 could send in powerful air forces to attack ones on the ground – as it has in places like Iraq.
But Donald Trump’s tense relations with Ukraine and suggestions the US could leave NATO have thrown its Article 5 obligations into major doubt.
‘Rapid reaction force’ closer to frontline
Alternatively, coalition troops could be sent closer to the frontline, Professor Clarke says.
They would be split into brigades manning four or five strategic bases like the cities of Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Kharkiv or Kyiv.
Describing them as a “rapid reaction force at high readiness”, Professor Clarke adds: “To be able to go to any trouble spot and snuff it out they’d need a lot of transport – particularly air cover to get there quickly enough.”
They too would likely need to be backed up by a US security guarantee, he says, but under the Trump administration, this is by no means certain.
A UN peacekeeping vehicle in southern Lebanon in November 2024. Pic: Reuters
Neutral peacekeeping force
Alternatively, a peacekeeping force could be led by the United Nations, which would recruit personnel from neutral countries in exchange for incentives, as it does elsewhere.
With the second-largest military in NATO, Turkey could be involved, Dr Aliyev says.
But with Vladimir Putin’s rejection of potential NATO forces, he may be more likely to accept ones from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations, Professor Clarke adds.
“Putin has hinted at troops from the Global South as monitors – because he thinks they are on his side,” he says. India in particular could be a viable option, he says.
“India has got big forces and wants to play a bigger strategic role in the world. Russia wouldn’t want to fire on Indian forces because of the political implications for their relationship – so they might be most acceptable to both Russia and the West.”
UN peacekeepers training in Mongolia. Pic: Reuters
While a neutral option might be the most practical – it may not be hugely successful, Dr Aliyev cautions.
“Similar missions in Lebanon and sub-Saharan Africa have been relatively low in effectiveness,” he says.”A UN force might be the most feasible for Russia – but a coalition of the willing would last longer.”
Donald Trump has said Volodymyr Zelenskyy will have to approve a proposed peace plan to end the war in Ukraine.
The controversial 28-point proposal – which would hand swathes of land to Russia and limit the size of Kyiv’s military – closely resembles the Kremlin’s demands.
Mr Zelenskyy has warned he has reservations about the plan, telling Ukrainians in a solemn speech: “Now is one of the most difficult days in our history.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Russia-Ukraine peace proposal explained
But Russian President Vladimir Putin has cautiously welcomed the US proposals – and said they “could form the basis for a final peace settlement”.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr Trump appeared to dismiss Mr Zelenskyy’s concerns: “He’ll have to like it… at some point, he’s going to have to accept something.”
The US president went on to reference their now-infamous Oval Office meeting back in February, where he told Ukraine‘s leader “you don’t have the cards”.
Kyiv has been given until Thursday to accept the peace plan – but this deadline could be extended to finalise the terms.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
We face losing major partner or dignity, says Zelenskyy
‘I am highly sceptical it will achieve peace’
Mr Trump has received pushback from members of his own party, with a prominent Republican warning the plan “has real problems”.
Senator Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, expressed doubt that the White House proposals would achieve peace.
“Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin,” he warned.
Tim Ash from the Chatham House think tank added: “Russia gets everything it wants and Ukraine gets not very much.
“If Zelenskyy accepts this, I anticipate huge political, social and economic instability in Ukraine.”
Analysis: We could all pay if Europe doesn’t step up
The Trump peace plan is nothing of the sort. It takes Russian demands and presents them as peace proposals, in what is effectively a surrender ultimatum for Ukraine.
If accepted, it would reward armed aggression. The principle that even de facto borders cannot be changed by force – sacrosanct since World War Two for very good reasons – will have been trampled on at the behest of the leader of the free world.
According to Reuters, European nations including the UK, France and Germany are now working on a counterproposal with Kyiv.
EU leaders, who were not consulted about the plan, will hold a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in South Africa on Saturday.
Sir Keir Starmer, who spoke to Mr Zelenskyy by phone on Friday, has warned “Russia pretends to be serious about peace, but their actions never live up to their words”.
Ahead of the talks, the prime minister said: “Ukraine has been ready to negotiate for months, while Russia has stalled and continued its murderous rampage. That is why we must all work together, with both the US and Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace once and for all. We will continue to coordinate closely with Washington and Kyiv to achieve that.
“However, we cannot simply wait for peace, we must strain every sinew to secure it. We must cut off Putin’s finance flows by ending our reliance on Russian gas. It won’t be easy, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Inside the Ukraine peace plan
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said: “We all want this war to end, but how it ends matters. Russia has no legal right whatsoever to any concessions from the country it invaded. This is a very dangerous moment for us all.”
Read more from Sky News:
Starmer refuses to rule out manifesto-breaking tax rises
BBC board member resigns – and criticises ‘governance issues’
‘Ukraine may be facing an extremely difficult decision’
During his address, Mr Zelenskyy said he would not betray Ukraine’s national interest – but warned dilemmas lie ahead.
He added: “Either a loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner. Either accepting a complicated list of 28 demands or enduring an extremely harsh winter, the harshest yet, with all the risks that follow.
“A life without freedom, without dignity, without justice. And all while being asked to trust someone who has already attacked us twice.”
Pics: Reuters
Washington has reportedly threatened to cut off intelligence sharing and weapons supplies if Kyiv refuses to accept the deal.
The US-backed proposal would require Ukraine to withdraw from territory it still controls in eastern provinces that Russia claims to have annexed – with Russia giving up smaller amounts of land it holds in other regions.
Ukraine would also be permanently barred from joining NATO, and its armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops.
Sanctions against Russia would also be gradually lifted, with Moscow invited back into the G8 and frozen assets pooled into an investment fund.
World
Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time and hope he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin
“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.
The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.
It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.
Ukraine war latest: Kyiv receives US peace plan
(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.
It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.
Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.
It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.
And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is Moscow back in Washington’s good books?
The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.
They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.
They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.
And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.
Read more from Sky News:
Witkoff’s ‘secret’ plan to end war
Navy could react to laser incident
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’
The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.
Perversely, though, it may help him.
There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.
The genesis of this plan is unclear.
Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.
The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.
Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.
If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.
Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.
They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.
The Eurovision Song Contest is changing its voting system, following allegations of “interference” by Israel’s government this year.
Israeli singer Yuval Raphael received the largest number of votes from the public in the contest in May, ultimately finishing as runner-up after the jury votes were counted.
But a number of broadcasters raised concerns about Israel’s result.
After the final, Irish broadcaster RTE requested a breakdown in voting numbers from contest organiser the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), while Spain’s public broadcaster, Radio Television Espanola (RTVE), called for a “complete review” of the voting system to avoid “external interference”.
In September, Dutch public broadcaster AVROTROS said it could no longer justify Israel‘s participation in the contest, due to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.
It went on to say there had been “proven interference by the Israeli government during the last edition of the Song Contest, with the event being used as a political instrument”. The statement did not elaborate on the means of “interference”.
Sky News has contacted the Israeli government for comment.
In early December, the EBU will hold its winter general assembly, with members due to consider the changes, and if not satisfied, vote on Israel’s participation.
Key changes to next year’s competition include:
• Clearer rules around promotion of artists and their songs
• Cap on audience voting halved
• The return of professional juries to semi-finals
• Enhanced security safeguards
Read more: Could Eurovision boycotts over Israel lead to a competition crisis?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Will Eurovision boycott Israel?
Sanctions threat
The EBU said the tightening of rules around promotion was to “discourage disproportionate promotion campaigns… particularly when undertaken or supported by third parties, including governments or governmental agencies”.
It said that “any attempts to unduly influence the results will lead to sanctions”.
Contest director Martin Green said “no broadcaster or artist may now directly engage with or support campaigns by third parties – including governments or their agencies – that could distort the vote”.
He said the reduction in the number of votes that can be made online, or via SMS or phone call, from 20 to 10 was “designed to encourage more balanced participation”.
He said that “although the number of votes previously allowed did not unduly influence the results of previous contests, there were concerns expressed by participating broadcasters and fans alike”.
Professional juries in semi-finals – and younger jurors
It was also announced that professional juries in the semi-finals would be restored for the first time since 2022, with an expansion to the range of professions from which jurors can be chosen.
The EBU said this will give roughly 50-50 percentage weight between audience and jury votes.
At least two jurors aged 18-25 will be present in every jury, to reflect the appeal of the contest with younger audiences.
Also mentioned were enhanced technical safeguards designed to “protect the contest from suspicious or coordinated voting activity” and strengthen security systems that “monitor, detect and prevent fraudulent patterns”.
Politics making itself heard over Europop lyrics
Mr Green said that the neutrality and integrity of the competition is of “paramount importance” to the EBU, its members, and audiences, adding that the event “should remain a neutral space and must not be instrumentalised”.
Israel’s 2024 representative, Eden Golan. Pic: AP
A vocally apolitical event, world events have dominated Eurovision in recent years.
Russia was banned from the competition in 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine.
Israel has competed in Eurovision for more than 50 years and won four times, but there have been ongoing calls to block their participation over the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the Hamas-Israel war.
Israel denies targeting civilians in Gaza and has said it is being unfairly demonised abroad.
In September, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, and Slovenia threatened to withdraw their participation in Eurovision unless Israel is excluded from the competition.
There were also demonstrations against Israel’s inclusion in Basel, Switzerland, when the 2025 competition took place.
‘Step in right direction’
Responding to the changes, Iceland’s official broadcaster RUV told Sky News they were “a step in the right direction”, and they would be discussing them with their “sister stations in the Nordic countries” ahead of the EBU meeting in December.
Ireland’s official broadcaster RTE told Sky News: “Clearly, events in the Middle East are unfolding day by day. As previously confirmed by the EBU, the issue of participation in the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest has been included on the agenda of the EBU Executive Board’s ordinary Winter General Assembly.”
Sky News has also contacted the official broadcaster for the Netherlands (AVROTROS), Spain (RTVE), Slovenia (RTVSLO), and Israel (Kan) for comment.
The chief executive of Kan, Golan Yochpaz, has previously said the event should not become political and that there is “no reason” why Israel should not be part of it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Pic: Reuters
Netanyahu praised Israeli entrant
Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel’s 2025 Eurovision entrant Yuval Raphael she had brought the country “a lot of honour” after she finished in second place, adding “you’re the real winner. Statistically, it’s true… You entered the hearts of a huge portion of the public in Europe.”
The year before he told entrant Eden Golan: “I saw that you received almost the highest number of votes from the public and this is the most important thing, not from the judges but from the public, and you held Israel’s head up high in Europe.”
In October, a ceasefire deal was put in place, aimed at bringing an end to the two-year war in the Middle East.
The war began when Hamas stormed into Israel on October 7 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage.
Israel invaded Gaza in retaliation, with airstrikes and ground assaults devastating much of the territory and killing more than 67,000, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
Its figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, but it says around half of those killed were women and children.
The world’s largest live music event, next year’s contest will be held in Vienna, Austria, in May and will celebrate 70 years of Eurovision.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024