Reframing the Ukraine Peace Process: Crimea, Negotiations, and International Mediation

The Washington Post argues that the central path to a peace settlement in Ukraine runs along the rocky, sea-swept Crimean peninsula.

Many Western officials are hopeful that an agreement on Crimea’s status and its transfer could underpin a diplomatic end to the war. Some even suggest that the conflict may be resolved in Crimea itself, with the peninsula becoming the focal point of a final settlement. These views appear throughout the article.

The piece notes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his advisers were more open to diplomatic concessions in the early stages than their rhetoric suggested. It recalls Istanbul meetings in March when Kyiv stated it could discuss the status of Crimea within the Russian Federation.

The article also features the perspective of former British Chief of the Defence Staff General David Richards. He envisions a possible agreement on Crimea that could include a carefully supervised referendum, perhaps akin to arrangements seen in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, the RP highlights persistent stubbornness on both sides and enduring claims to the peninsula, which block the signing of a peace treaty. The situation in Crimea could prompt a Ukrainian military move there or push Moscow to take decisive steps, possibly even involving nuclear considerations.

Status and parties to the negotiations

In mid-November, Zelensky suggested that Russia sought a short-term pause rather than a genuine solution, arguing that territorial concessions and other moral compromises would not bring peace.

He maintained that a true, lasting peace would require the complete ending of Russian aggression.

According to his assessment, a peaceful settlement would require several conditions: ensuring Ukraine’s food and energy security, releasing detainees and deportees, upholding the UN Charter and restoring territorial integrity, withdrawing Russian troops, halting hostilities, and delivering compensation for damage caused by the conflict. It would also involve environmental damage assessments, security guarantees, and the formal end of the war through a signed document.

The Russian side has repeatedly asserted its willingness to revisit the dispute, but Moscow has said Kyiv does not reject the idea outright.

The history of Moscow–Kyiv negotiations

Moscow has pressed for peace talks with Kyiv since the early days of the operation. Several rounds occurred, but terms remained unresolved. Moscow said Kyiv made unrealistic demands, while Kyiv argued Moscow’s demands were unenforceable. Reports from March 29 indicated potential progress after Istanbul’s negotiations, but the process stalled and dialogue lapsed.

The history shows Ukraine insisting on a non-bloc status, recognition of Crimea under Russian jurisdiction, and the DPR and LPR in Donetsk and Luhansk as part of a phased settlement. Kyiv sought robust security guarantees via an international framework. Proposed guarantors included permanent UN Security Council members, among others, while Kyiv demanded an immediate ceasefire, troop withdrawal by February 24, and Crimea’s return to Ukrainian control. The talks later stalled.

On September 30, Zelensky spoke in a video message about approaching negotiations with a readiness to coexist on equal, fair terms, stating that dialogue with Russia would be possible only with a different president in the Kremlin. After the admission of the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to Russia on October 4, Russia’s National Security Council backed a decision to suspend negotiations.

By November 25, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told Parisien that Kyiv was not against talks with Moscow. Earlier, Zelensky had said Kyiv would engage in negotiations only if Russia met conditions including territorial guarantees, compensation for damage, and assurances that hostilities would not resume. Actions against war criminals were also emphasized, along with safeguards for Ukrainian territory.

Mid-November saw talks between Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, and William Burns, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director. Naryshkin said the discussions covered Ukraine, nuclear security, and strategic stability. President Vladimir Putin later announced that a meeting between Russian and American intelligence agencies occurred at the invitation of U.S. President Joe Biden, though limited details were shared by the parties. Moscow’s position remained that negotiations were possible, while Washington indicated the focus did not center on Ukraine during that session.

Putin added that Russia was prepared to negotiate on Ukraine, noting that statements by peers such as Angela Merkel had created a trust deficit. He argued that while negotiations were not avoidable, the credibility of partners mattered and questions about guarantees persisted.

Turkey has repeatedly offered to host peace talks and has played an active role, hosting Istanbul negotiations and contributing to a grain deal. Ankara has argued that Moscow should revert Crimea and other gains from 2014 to Ukrainian jurisdiction as a condition for any peace accord. By late August, Turkey’s spokesperson stated that any settlement must include Crimea returning to Ukraine.

France has also sought involvement in mediating the conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed willingness to mediate, and in early 2022 he spoke with Putin about a possible deal. However, those efforts faced obstacles as France’s outreach did not result in sustained dialogue.

On December 8, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson commented that Macron’s actions should be judged by concrete steps rather than words, signaling patience for tangible progress over rhetoric.