World

The Sticking Points That Kept Russia and Ukraine Apart

Published

2 years ago

June 15, 2024

The Sticking Points That Kept Russia and Ukraine Apart

Russia and Ukraine failed to agree on a range of critical issues when they held peace talks in the spring of 2022. Documents from those talks obtained by The New York Times shed new light on what those issues were — and what are likely to be the main sticking points in any future negotiations to end Europe’s biggest land war in generations.

President Vladimir V. Putin had referred to the 2022 talks as a foundation for any future deal, but shifted to a harder line on Friday, demanding Ukraine cede territory that is not even under Russian control. Ukrainian and Western officials have long suspected that Russia would not be willing to settle for anything less than the full subjugation of Ukraine.

1. Ukrainian neutrality:
Will it join NATO?

Ukraine’s efforts to join the Western military alliance were at the core of Mr. Putin’s justifications for invading the country in February 2022.

Russia’s Position

Russia demanded that Ukraine never join NATO or other alliances; host foreign military bases or weapons; or conduct military exercises with other countries without its consent. In the 2022 talks, Russia pledged not to stand in the way of Ukraine’s possible membership in the European Union.

Ukraine’s Position

Ukraine offered to become a “permanently neutral state” and to “terminate international treaties and agreements that are incompatible with permanent neutrality.” But in the two years since, Ukraine’s leaders have become more vocal about seeking to join the Western military alliance as Russia’s war has continued.

2. Security guarantees:
What happens if Ukraine is attacked again?

Pledges from other countries to protect Ukraine if Russia mounts another invasion are bound to be at the center of any durable peace, some experts say.

Ukraine’s Position

Ukraine proposed a security mechanism that would be triggered “in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine.” The “guarantor” countries that signed on to the treaty would hold “urgent and immediate consultations” for no more than three days. Then, they would take “individual or joint action as may be necessary” to protect Ukraine, including establishing a no-fly zone, providing weapons and using military force.

Russia’s Position

Russia agreed to much of Ukraine’s security guarantees proposal but with key exceptions. It balked at the idea of other countries establishing a no-fly zone or providing Ukraine with weapons. Most important, Russia sought to insert a clause that would require all guarantor countries — including Russia itself — to agree on military intervention. The idea stands as perhaps the most intractable sticking point in the draft, rendering the security guarantees moot by allowing Russia to veto any international response if it invaded Ukraine again.

There was also a question: What countries would actually be willing to guarantee Ukraine’s security? The United States, the U.K., France, China and Russia itself were all listed in the draft of the treaty as guarantors. Russia also wanted to include Belarus, while Ukraine wanted to add Turkey; it’s unclear whether the countries had given their assent. If Ukraine eventually joins NATO, the Western alliance will have to deal with similarly thorny issues about how to respond if Ukraine is attacked again.

3. Territory:
How much of Ukraine would remain under Russian occupation?

For Ukraine, a peace deal would be likely to come at the expense of accepting Russian control over some part of its territory.

Ukraine’s Position

In the 2022 talks, Ukraine refused to recognize Russian control over any of the country, including Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. But Ukraine did offer a deal in which the two countries would agree to “resolve issues related to Crimea” through 10 or 15 years of diplomacy, and would pledge to avoid doing so by “military means.”

Ukraine appeared ready to accept some swath of the country’s east also remaining under Russian occupation, with the precise contours to be hashed out in a meeting between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Mr. Putin that never came.

Mr. Zelensky’s position has since hardened. He says Ukraine is fighting to liberate all internationally recognized territory, including Crimea, under Russian control.

Russia’s Position

Russia’s stance has also fluctuated. At the outset of the 2022 negotiations, Russia demanded that Ukraine give up its entire eastern Donbas region and recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. By April, Russia had accepted a model in which Crimea and some other parts of Ukraine would remain under Russian occupation that Ukraine would not recognize as being legal.

Now, however, Russia’s territorial demands appear more extreme. In September 2022, Mr. Putin declared four Ukrainian regions, in addition to Crimea, to be part of Russia, even though Ukraine still controlled much of that territory. On Friday, Mr. Putin went further than in the past, declaring that any ceasefire would be contingent on Ukraine ceding all four regions to Russia, none of which Russia fully controls.

4. How would a cease-fire work?

The logistics of how to put a truce into effect are likely to pose one of the most difficult challenges of any negotiations.

Russia’s Position

An annex to the April 2022 draft added by Russia’s negotiators spelled out how Moscow saw a cease-fire taking hold. They said it would begin when the treaty was “provisionally applied” — defined as the day it was signed by Ukraine and most of the guarantor countries, including Russia. Both sides would not “carry out actions that could lead to the expansion of the territory controlled by them or cause a resumption of hostilities.”

Under Russia’s proposed terms, Moscow’s troops would have more flexibility in withdrawing from the battlefield. While Ukraine would be required to withdraw immediately, Russia’s withdrawal would be the subject of separate “consultations.”

International organizations could also be involved. Russia proposed that the United Nations monitor the cease-fire and that the Red Cross participate in the exchange of prisoners of war, interned civilians and the remains of the dead.

Ukraine’s Position

The April 2022 draft shows that Ukraine rejected Russia’s proposal but does not show a Ukrainian counteroffer. Instead, Ukrainian officials pointed out that Russia could stop fighting at any time. A note inserted by Ukrainian officials into the March 2022 treaty draft says: “The Russian side has ignored Ukraine’s numerous requests for a ceasefire.”

5. Ukrainian national identity

When Mr. Putin announced his invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, he described one of his goals as the “denazification” of Ukraine. The term was widely interpreted as referring to the Kremlin’s goal of toppling Mr. Zelensky’s government and replacing it with a puppet regime.

Russia’s Position

But Russia’s definition of “denazification” shifted quickly after its initial invasion failed. Negotiators for Moscow wanted Russian to be declared an official language and laws promoting Ukrainian language and identity to be repealed. They inserted two annexes into the draft treaty listing the articles of the legal code and Ukrainian Constitution that they wanted repealed, referring to some of them as laws on “nazification and heroization of Nazism.”

Ukraine’s Position

Ukraine balked at including any of Russia’s demands in a deal to end the war, arguing that they were “not related to the subject matter of the treaty.”

6. Limits on Ukraine’s military

Mr. Putin also called for Ukraine’s “demilitarization” when he announced his invasion, like “denazification” an ill-defined term.

Russia’s Position

Russia sought caps on the size of Ukraine’s military, including its total strength (up to 100,000 people), and the quantity of different types of weapons it would have — 147 mortars and 10 combat helicopters, for example. It also wanted the firing range of Ukraine’s missiles to be restricted to just 25 miles.

Ukraine’s Position

In the 2022 talks, Ukraine was willing to accept caps on the size of its military, but much higher ones. It sought an army of up to 250,000 people, 1,080 mortars and 60 combat helicopters. And it offered to restrict the range of its missiles to 174 miles. But that was before Ukraine began to receive significant amounts of arms, equipment and training from the West. Ukrainian officials point out that Ukraine’s military is now one of the most powerful in Europe, and it is unlikely that they would accept limits on the country’s ability to defend itself.

Original documents

To omit identifying markings, these documents have been retyped to resemble the originals. Typographical errors in the original documents have been retained.

March 17, 2022, treaty draft An early draft of a Ukraine-Russia treaty. The document is an English translation that Ukraine provided to Western governments at the time. [English]

March 29, 2022, Istanbul Communiqué The proposed agreement that was discussed at in-person talks in Istanbul, as summarized by Ukrainian negotiators. [English translation] [Russian original]

April 15, 2022, treaty draft A later draft of a Ukraine-Russia treaty. The document’s header shows this was a version that landed on President Vladimir Putin’s desk. The map referred to as Annex 6 is not included. [English translation] [Russian original]

World

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

Published

3 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Trump says he is directing federal agencies to cease use of Anthropic technology

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he was directing every federal agency to immediately cease all use of Anthropic’s technology, adding there would be a six-month phase out for agencies such as the Defense Department who use the company’s products.

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

5 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

6 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.