Berlin – December 11, 2025 – In a pivotal development aimed at ending Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced Thursday that Kyiv and its European allies have finalized a revised peace proposal for Ukraine that explicitly addresses long-taboo territorial concessions to Russia. The document, dispatched to Washington hours after a tense transatlantic phone call, signals a potential thaw in stalled negotiations, though it underscores the fraught dynamics between U.S. President Donald Trump and his European counterparts. Speaking at a joint press conference in Berlin alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Merz emphasized that any deal must prioritize Ukrainian sovereignty and popular consent, while hinting at weekend talks that could culminate in a high-stakes summit next week.
The announcement follows a 40-minute conference call Wednesday evening between Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Trump, where the leaders clashed over the war’s endgame. Trump described the exchange as involving “pretty strong words” and urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to adopt a “realistic” stance on territorial compromises. “We discussed Ukraine in pretty strong terms,” Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that Zelenskyy “has to be realistic” about ceding land to Moscow in exchange for peace and vague U.S. security guarantees. Downing Street characterized the call as “constructive,” with all parties agreeing it marked a “critical moment” for Ukraine and Euro-Atlantic security, and committing to “intensive work” on the peace plan in the coming days.
Merz laid out the proposal’s contours with measured optimism. “The main issue here is what territorial concessions Ukraine is prepared to make. However, this is a question that must be answered primarily by the Ukrainian president and the Ukrainian people, as we also made clear to President Trump,” he stated, flanked by Rutte in the Chancellery’s press room. The document—trimmed from an initial 28-point U.S. draft leaked last month to a more streamlined 20 points—outlines potential Ukrainian flexibility on Crimea and parts of the Donbas region, annexed by Russia in 2014 and 2022, respectively. It also proposes a demilitarized buffer zone along the front lines, monitored by NATO-led peacekeepers, and a framework for economic reconstruction funded partly by frozen Russian assets estimated at €300 billion ($320 billion).
While specifics remain classified to avoid inflaming Kyiv’s domestic politics, sources familiar with the talks indicate the concessions could involve recognizing Russian de facto control over Crimea in perpetuity, alongside phased withdrawals from occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, contingent on verifiable Russian troop pullbacks and international guarantees against future incursions. Merz stressed that the plan was crafted in close consultation with Zelenskyy during his recent London visit on December 8, where the Ukrainian leader met with Starmer, Macron, and Merz to refine the proposal. “It would be a mistake to force the Ukrainian president into a peace that his people will not accept after four years of suffering and death,” Merz cautioned, invoking the war’s toll: over 500,000 military casualties, millions displaced, and infrastructure devastation costing upwards of $500 billion.
The timing is precarious. Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 has ground into a brutal stalemate, with Moscow’s forces advancing incrementally in Donetsk while Ukraine grapples with manpower shortages and delayed Western arms deliveries. Zelenskyy, facing mounting domestic pressure—including protests over conscription and corruption—has resisted territorial cessions, famously declaring in September 2022 that “not an inch of Ukrainian land” would be surrendered. Yet, with U.S. aid under Trump’s second term increasingly conditional—totaling $175 billion since 2022 but now tied to negotiation benchmarks—Kyiv’s leverage has waned. European contributions, led by Germany’s €28 billion in military support and France’s provision of SCALP missiles, have surged but cannot fully offset potential American retrenchment.
Trump’s intervention has injected urgency and controversy. Elected on a pledge to resolve the war “in 24 hours,” the president has pivoted from isolationism to aggressive deal-making, dispatching son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow last week for five hours of talks with Vladimir Putin. Those discussions yielded no breakthroughs, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissing U.S. overtures as “unrealistic” absent Moscow’s maximalist demands: full NATO renunciation by Ukraine and recognition of all annexed territories. Trump, undeterred, has publicly questioned Europe’s resolve, calling leaders “weak” in a December 9 interview and threatening to withhold intelligence sharing if allies don’t align with his vision.
European diplomats view the proposal as a bridging exercise, blending Trump’s push for swift concessions with safeguards for long-term stability. Macron, speaking from the Élysée Palace post-call, described the document as a “balanced roadmap” incorporating French ideas for a European security pact, potentially involving 30 “coalition of the willing” nations—including Poland, the Baltics, and Canada—in peacekeeping roles. Starmer echoed this, telling Parliament that the UK would commit £5 billion more in aid, contingent on progress, while emphasizing London’s non-negotiable red line: no deal without ironclad deterrence against Russian revanchism.
Merz outlined next steps with precision: “If we now proceed with this process as we envisage, there will be talks with the US over the weekend. And then, there may be a meeting here in Berlin at the beginning of next week. Whether or not the US will participate depends very much on the joint drafting of the documents.” A virtual “coalition” call involving Zelenskyy and up to 30 allies is slated for Thursday afternoon, focusing on security guarantees and asset utilization. Should momentum build, the Berlin summit could host Trump virtually or in person, marking his first major foreign policy test since inauguration.
Reactions have been swift and polarized. In Kyiv, opposition lawmaker Oleksiy Goncharenko hailed the proposal as “pragmatic diplomacy” on X, arguing it buys time for rearmament, while hardliners decried it as “capitulation.” Zelenskyy, addressing parliament, reaffirmed that “peace must be just, not at any cost,” but analysts detect softening: a recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology shows 52% of Ukrainians now favor negotiated settlements involving limited territorial trade-offs, up from 38% in mid-2024.
Moscow’s response was tepid. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of “exploiting” the war to distract from other crises, while reiterating demands for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality. Putin, via Telegram, welcomed “realistic proposals” but insisted on “denazification” and demilitarization—euphemisms for regime change and disarmament. Russian state media framed the concessions as validation of two years of grinding attrition.
Critics warn of risks. NATO’s Rutte cautioned that premature concessions could embolden aggressors from Minsk to Tehran, eroding the alliance’s credibility. U.S. Senate concerns have been voiced urging no “fire sale” of Ukrainian sovereignty. Humanitarian groups highlighted the proposal’s omission of war crimes accountability, with over 100,000 alleged Russian atrocities documented by the International Criminal Court since 2022.
Economically, the stakes are immense. A peace deal could unlock $1 trillion in reconstruction, but require reconciling EU sanctions relief with transatlantic unity. Germany’s Merz, whose coalition hinges on export recovery, sees resolution as key to stabilizing energy prices.
As winter deepens the front-line freeze, this proposal represents a fragile lifeline. Merz’s weekend consultations with U.S. envoys will test Trump’s deal-making prowess against Europe’s multilateral instincts. Success could avert escalation; failure risks fracturing the West just as China eyes Taiwan. For Ukraine’s weary millions, the Berlin gambit offers not triumph, but a grim calculus: land for life, concessions for cessation. Whether it forges enduring peace or merely pauses the carnage remains the continent’s most pressing wager.
