By Sardar Khan Niazi

The Kremlin’s announcement that Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed in principle to resume trilateral negotiations with Ukraine and the United States marks a potentially significant moment in the search for an end to the war. According to reports published on October 21, the proposed talks could resume after November 10, following a meeting between Putin and US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also expressed support for renewed negotiations. Yet the announcement should be treated as an opening for diplomacy, not evidence that a settlement is imminent. At the center of the dispute are fundamental disagreements over territory, sovereignty and security. Moscow has its own demands concerning the post-war European security order, while Kyiv insists that any settlement must protect Ukraine’s independence and prevent another invasion. These positions cannot be reconciled through diplomatic announcements alone. The proposed negotiations are expected to address security arrangements for Russia and Ukraine after the conflict. This is an important starting point, but the concept must be translated into concrete commitments. What guarantees would protect Ukraine against renewed aggression? What arrangements would address Russia’s stated security concerns without compromising Ukraine’s sovereign rights? And what mechanisms would ensure that any agreement is implemented rather than abandoned when political circumstances change? These questions require detailed answers. A ceasefire may stop the immediate fighting, but without effective monitoring, credible guarantees and an agreed process for resolving violations, it could merely suspend hostilities until another confrontation. The United States has an important role to play because of its influence over Ukraine’s military support, its economic leverage and its capacity to engage directly with Moscow. President Donald Trump’s administration has renewed efforts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table. The latest contacts suggest that Washington is seeking to restore momentum after earlier rounds of talks failed to produce a comprehensive settlement. Nevertheless, American mediation must be judged by the substance of the outcome rather than the frequency of high-level meetings. Pressure for a rapid agreement may produce an announcement, but a durable settlement requires more than a deadline. Washington must also maintain a workable relationship with Kyiv. Ukraine is not simply a party whose consent can be assumed after the major powers have reached an understanding. Any arrangement affecting its territory, defence or political future must involve Ukrainian representatives directly. Equally, European countries cannot be treated as peripheral stakeholders. The war has reshaped European security, defense spending, energy policy and relations with Moscow. European governments will have a significant role in supporting Ukraine, implementing security arrangements and managing the consequences of any settlement. Their participation can help ensure that a prospective agreement rests on broader international support. Diplomatic maneuvering often focuses on military positions, territorial claims and strategic calculations. Yet the consequences of the war are most visible in the lives of ordinary people. Families remain separated, communities struggle with damaged infrastructure and displaced citizens face uncertainty about whether they can return home. A serious peace process must therefore include humanitarian priorities from the outset. Agreements to protect civilians, facilitate the return of displaced people where conditions permit, address prisoners of war and support reconstruction would provide tangible evidence that negotiations are improving lives. International institutions can assist with humanitarian access, monitoring and reconstruction planning. They can also help establish independent mechanisms for documenting violations and assessing compliance with agreed commitments. These measures cannot resolve every political dispute, but they can make the path towards peace more credible.