The 10% Problem: Why Ukraine's Peace Deal Remains Fragile Despite 90% Progress

Zelenskyy has drawn a clear line in the sand—Ukraine will pursue peace, but not surrender. In his New Year address, the Ukrainian president made his position unmistakable: “We want an end to the war but not the end of Ukraine.” The distinction matters. While fatigue is real (“Are we tired? Very”), weakness is not an option. His refusal to accept “weak agreements” signals that any deal must protect Ukraine’s core interests, not just pause the conflict temporarily.

The math looks promising on paper. According to diplomatic sources, a peace agreement is already 90% complete—a milestone Trump’s mediation efforts in Florida have helped achieve. But that remaining 10% is deceptive. As Zelenskyy bluntly stated, “That 10 per cent contains everything. It will determine the fate of peace, the fate of Ukraine and Europe.” This isn’t small-print negotiation; it’s the substance that separates a genuine settlement from a weak ceasefire that could reignite conflict.

What’s caught in that 10%? Territory. The unresolved territorial disputes between Ukraine and Russia remain the fundamental sticking point. Without clarity on borders and sovereignty, any agreement risks becoming temporary, making weak peace deals merely a postponement of hostilities rather than their resolution.

Putin’s New Year message painted a different picture entirely. The Russian president doubled down on military determination, insisting Moscow still believes it can prevail in Ukraine. His rhetoric mirrors previous war-era statements, suggesting limited flexibility on the territorial question that Zelenskyy considers non-negotiable.

Zelenskyy emphasized that every current diplomatic decision aims at “strong peace, not for a day, a week or two months, but peace for years.” This long-term vision directly contradicts any weak compromise that leaves core disputes unresolved. The challenge: Trump’s mediation has brought sides closer, but closing that final 10% may prove exponentially harder than the first 90%.

The gap between 90% agreement and actual implementation highlights why weak frameworks collapse. Without addressing the territory question decisively, the peace architecture remains unstable, vulnerable to the next escalation or misunderstanding.