Miami Peace Talks Conclude as Kremlin Dismisses Revised 20-Point Ukraine Plan

Great-power “peace workshops” far from the front have precedent: the 1973 Paris Peace Accords for Vietnam formally ended U.S. involvement but did not stop the fighting, and the 1995 Dayton talks for Bosnia imposed an externally written map that still freezes politics today. The Miami round reflects two longer arcs: (1) Washington’s habit of drafting security compacts that outlive administrations—here, Trump’s team seeks a deal that cements U.S. leverage while limiting NATO exposure; (2) Moscow’s century-old tactic, from Brest-Litovsk in 1918 to Minsk II in 2015, of using negotiations to lock in battlefield gains. Whether this moment matters a century from now hinges on one question: does the 20-point outline morph into a durable security regime or dissolve like earlier cease-fire texts? If it fails, the precedent will reinforce a growing 21st-century pattern—protracted conflicts where great-power mediation produces paper agreements, not peace, while civilian harm and economic disruption (e.g., grain corridor through Odesa) grind on.