Berlin, Dec. 16 (SANA) Talks in Berlin on the Russia-Ukraine war ended without the announcement of a final agreement, as participating parties confirmed limited progress while acknowledging continued disagreements over core issues, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
Despite the absence of a decisive breakthrough, the latest round restored some momentum to a faltering diplomatic track, representing a renewed attempt to shape a political framework that could lead to a ceasefire nearly four years after the war erupted.
Negotiators pointed to modest advances on certain files, counterbalanced by persistent deadlock on major issues, most notably the future of disputed territories and the nature of security guarantees required for any potential settlement.
Cautious optimism and guarantees
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the talks as opening “a real opportunity for a peace process,” saying the U.S. offer to provide Ukraine with legal and material security guarantees marked a step forward compared with previous initiatives. He stressed that any ceasefire must be grounded in strong guarantees to ensure its durability.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for his part, said progress had been made regarding U.S. security guarantees, noting that the details he reviewed “appear positive.” He reaffirmed Ukraine’s readiness to work toward “a just solution” leading to a solid peace agreement that would prevent a renewed conflict.
Information circulating among diplomats indicates that the U.S. proposals include security guarantees resembling those outlined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, without extending to full alliance membership. The idea has been met with cautious European support and is viewed as an interim option short of NATO accession.
The core obstacle: territory
Despite the cautiously positive tone, the territorial file emerged as the most significant barrier. U.S. negotiators reportedly told the Ukrainian side that any agreement to end the war would require discussing a withdrawal from parts of the eastern Donetsk region, a proposal that met clear reservations from Kyiv.
Zelenskyy acknowledged differences with Washington over territorial concessions, calling the issue “an extremely painful issue” He said any settlement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a just peace that cannot be violated.
The Kremlin, meanwhile, reiterated that Ukraine remaining outside NATO is a fundamental condition for any potential settlement. Moscow said it is awaiting a briefing from Washington on the outcome of the Berlin talks, without announcing an official position on the specific proposals discussed.
Conditional support
At the European level, EU leaders floated the idea of deploying a European-led multinational force to support stability in Ukraine, alongside guarantees to maintain support for the Ukrainian army if a political agreement is reached.
The issue of frozen Russian assets also resurfaced, with Zelenskyy calling for their full use in support of Ukraine. He described allocating the funds for defense and reconstruction as “fair and reasonable.”
While some European countries back the proposal, others — including Belgium — remain cautious due to potential legal repercussions, underscoring divisions within the EU over financing mechanisms.
Between politics and the battlefield
Observers say the current diplomatic activity reflects a growing recognition among international actors of the difficulty of achieving a military resolution, alongside an understanding that any peace agreement would remain fragile without clear guarantees and long-term enforcement mechanisms.
Although no final breakthrough was achieved, the Berlin talks were seen as among the most serious rounds since the outbreak of one of Europe’s longest modern armed conflicts. They showed relative convergence on some files while deferring the most sensitive issues to later stages.
As attention turns to expected contacts between Washington and Moscow and the outcome of a European summit scheduled for Thursday, the future of the negotiating track hinges on whether the parties can overcome disputes over territory and guarantees — and translate partial progress into a concrete agreement that ends the war, or at least opens the door to a sustainable ceasefire.
