US President Donald Trump has suggested that Ukraine's borders could change as part of a negotiated settlement with Russia, ahead of renewed trilateral discussions involving Washington, Moscow and Kiev in the United Arab Emirates. While Trump predicts an end to the conflict could be approaching, Ukraine continues to reject territorial concessions and Russia insists any lasting agreement must recognise what it describes as the new realities on the ground.
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT, published 9 November 2026, HERE.
Trump Predicts New Borders
Donald Trump has indicated that Ukraine may emerge from a negotiated peace settlement with different territorial boundaries, raising fresh questions about the concessions Washington believes will be necessary to end the conflict with Russia. Speaking during a Sunday interview with CBS News, the US president expressed confidence that an agreement could be reached, although he provided few details about its proposed terms.
Trump said he believed the war would end soon and suggested that Ukraine would ultimately have a different geographical shape. His remarks came ahead of renewed trilateral discussions involving representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the United States, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates.
The comments mark another indication that Washington is considering territorial compromise as part of a broader settlement. However, Trump did not specify which territories might be affected, whether any proposed changes would receive international recognition, or how Ukraine's government would be expected to accept such an arrangement.
The distinction is important because territorial control, sovereignty and international recognition are separate issues. A negotiated ceasefire could establish lines of military control without legally recognising changes to internationally recognised borders. A formal territorial settlement would raise considerably more difficult legal and political questions.
Kiev Rejects Concessions
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has consistently opposed surrendering Ukrainian territory as part of a peace agreement. His position has been supported by European governments that argue any settlement must respect Ukraine's sovereignty and internationally recognised borders.
According to RT, Zelensky aide Sergey Leschenko reiterated ahead of the UAE discussions that Ukraine would seek an end to fighting along the existing front line without formally relinquishing territory. This approach would potentially freeze the military situation while leaving the ultimate status of Russian-held areas unresolved.
That position remains fundamentally different from Moscow's stated requirements. Russia has insisted that any durable settlement must address what it calls the underlying causes of the conflict and recognise territorial changes arising from the war.
The disagreement leaves negotiators confronting one of the most difficult questions in the peace process: whether the conflict can be halted without resolving sovereignty over the disputed territories.
Moscow Demands Recognition
Russia has repeatedly rejected temporary ceasefires that it believes would allow Ukraine to rebuild its military strength before fighting resumes. Moscow argues that a lasting settlement must include security arrangements and recognition of its territorial claims.
Those claims include Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, and four Ukrainian regions that Moscow declared annexed in 2022 following referendums conducted under Russian occupation or control. Ukraine and most of the international community do not recognise these annexations as lawful transfers of sovereignty.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has nevertheless maintained that Moscow remains open to negotiations, while warning that Russia will continue pursuing its objectives if a settlement cannot be reached.
This creates a fundamental obstacle. Moscow wants recognition of territorial outcomes that Kiev rejects, while Ukraine seeks to preserve its legal claims even where it does not currently exercise military control.
Trump's comments suggest Washington may be looking for a formula capable of bridging that divide, although the details remain unclear.
Washington Pushes for a Deal
Trump has repeatedly argued that the war would not have begun had he occupied the White House in 2022. During his CBS interview, he again described the conflict as one he inherited and expressed confidence in his ability to bring it to an end.
The president previously discussed territorial concessions following his August 2025 meeting with Putin in Anchorage, Alaska. According to RT, Trump now expects another in-person meeting with the Russian leader during an upcoming APEC summit in Shenzhen, potentially alongside discussions involving Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Any such meeting would introduce an additional diplomatic dimension. China maintains significant economic relationships with Russia and has repeatedly called for a negotiated settlement, although Beijing's precise role in any proposed agreement would need to be established.
For Washington, the challenge is not simply persuading Moscow and Kiev to negotiate. It is finding terms that both sides consider politically and strategically acceptable.
Without agreement on territory, security guarantees and the conditions for ending hostilities, predictions of an imminent peace settlement remain uncertain.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
For New Zealand, the outcome of negotiations over Ukraine carries implications extending beyond the European battlefield. The conflict has affected international energy markets, food production, shipping costs, sanctions policy and relations between major powers, all of which can influence a small trading economy dependent on international supply chains.
A durable settlement could reduce some geopolitical uncertainty and potentially ease pressures on international commodity and transport markets. However, any economic benefits would depend on the terms of the agreement, the future of sanctions and the extent to which trade and energy markets normalise.
There is also a wider diplomatic question. New Zealand has consistently supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, making any proposed recognition of territorial changes through military force particularly significant.
A ceasefire that freezes existing lines of control would not necessarily settle the legal status of disputed territory. New Zealand would therefore need to distinguish between supporting an end to hostilities and accepting permanent changes to internationally recognised borders.
The central question is whether a settlement can end the fighting while providing sufficient security and political legitimacy to prevent another conflict.
Trump believes an agreement may be approaching. Moscow insists its territorial and security demands must be addressed. Kiev continues to reject territorial concessions.
Until those positions move closer together, the shape of any future Ukraine remains unresolved.
Sources