Trump’s peace deal finalised – Yemark exit clears way for end of war
London, UK, December 1, 2025
The lengthy and devastating conflict in Ukraine is poised for a definitive conclusion after months of high-stakes, behind-the-scenes maneuvering orchestrated by the United States.
CJ Global can confirm from confidential diplomatic sources that the Trump administration has successfully compelled all major parties—including a previously resistant European Union—to agree in principle to the framework of a comprehensive peace deal.
This agreement was secured only after extraordinary pressure, including a direct military ultimatum to Europe and a political crisis in Kyiv that saw the powerful chief negotiator, Andriy Yermak, forced from his post.
The terms will usher in a ceasefire, but at the cost of fundamentally redrawing the map of Eastern Europe and creating a new set of long-term security dynamics.
The final breakthrough centers on a pragmatic acceptance of the new political realities, abandoning the maximalist negotiating positions that had prolonged the war.
The consensus framework, now largely solidified after revisions to the initial 28-point proposal, sets the stage for a Ceasefire Protocol to be signed and enacted in January 2026.
This rapid timeline reflects the diplomatic urgency imposed by the White House, determined to bring the war to an end ahead of the new US political cycle.
EU Approval Followed Trump’s Military Ultimatum
The most significant diplomatic barrier was the European Union’s unyielding stance on Ukraine’s sovereign borders.
Key member states, including France and Germany, were vehemently opposed to signing off on any plan that involved territorial concessions to Russia, fearing it would set a catastrophic precedent for future aggression in Europe.
The Threat that Broke Resistance:
The EU’s resistance crumbled when President Trump issued a direct, non-negotiable ultimatum.
CJ Global understands that the US informed major European capitals that unless the EU moved quickly to back the peace framework, the US would initiate an accelerated, phased withdrawal of key US military assets from both NATO’s eastern flank and core European bases.
This threat exposed the raw vulnerability of European defense capabilities, forcing the Continent to prioritize its own security and stability over Ukraine’s maximum territorial goals.
A Pivot to Economics:
The EU swiftly convened emergency meetings, where leaders acknowledged the immediate military and financial impossibility of deterring Russia without full American support.
The focus immediately pivoted to the post-conflict economic situation. The EU’s role is now strictly defined:
they are finalizing the Sanctions Suspension Mechanism that will lift restrictions on Russia in phases, and their financial commitment is centered on establishing the Ukraine Reconstruction Fund, which relies heavily on European contributions and the eventual leveraging of frozen Russian assets held in European financial institutions.
Yermak’s Exit:
A Political Cover for Concessions
The highly publicized corruption investigation and subsequent resignation of Andriy Yermak, President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff and chief peace negotiator, is now widely viewed in diplomatic circles as the final, necessary political concession required to consummate the peace deal.
A Close Exit for Russia’s Influence:
Yermak was a staunch proponent of Ukraine’s non-compromising “no territorial concession” stance.
His removal, under the cover of an anti-corruption probe, signals to Moscow and Washington that the Ukrainian government is now politically prepared to accept the most painful territorial and security compromises.
Yermak’s absence streamlines the process of passing final legislative changes in Kyiv, including those that mandate the protection of the Russian language and culture and the constitutional enshrining of Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, which explicitly bans any future NATO membership.
Kyiv’s New Team:
The new negotiating team, led by figures like Rustem Umerov, is tasked with managing the political fallout of the concessions while accepting the deal’s premise that the cost of prolonged war is now greater than the cost of a compromised peace.
The New Map:
Formalising Russia’s Territorial Gains
The core of the deal’s success lies in the territorial compromises.
The resulting map will reflect a new reality based on the military dynamics of the conflict.
Territorial Cession:
The peace treaty requires Ukraine to formally accept the permanent loss of all territory currently under Russian military occupation and influence.
This includes:
Crimea:
Formal recognition of Russian authority over the peninsula.
Donetsk and Luhansk:
The agreement mandates the transfer of all remaining areas of the two oblasts currently under Ukrainian control to Russian authority or a demilitarized zone.
Kherson and Zaporizhzhia:
The current front lines in these southern oblasts will be frozen and recognized as the new de facto state boundary, formally securing Russia’s vital land bridge to Crimea.
Limited Withdrawal:
Russia will only withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian territory it has occupied that lies outside of the newly recognized de facto boundaries in Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
No Wider Withdrawal:
Crucially, the peace treaty is strictly limited to the Ukraine conflict and contains no provisions requiring Russia to withdraw its forces from the internationally recognized territories of Moldova (Transnistria) or Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
This ensures Moscow retains its influence over Europe’s key buffer states, a major win for the Kremlin.
The final signature on the peace treaty is expected at a summit between Presidents Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy, provisionally scheduled for February 2026.
This agreement will not only end the fighting but will fundamentally redefine the security architecture of the 21st century, institutionalizing Russia’s territorial gains and securing Ukraine’s future as a permanently non-aligned state.
