Discussion of peace talks between Ukraine and Russia has become popular as Kyiv's battle to drive out Russian troops appears stuck in a stalemate — or worse. Many security analysts, including some sympathetic to Ukraine, now talk about the need for the beleaguered nation to concede territory to Moscow.

Much of that talk ignores the realities on the ground. Some are downright dangerous, especially the pro-Moscow proposals from Donald Trump and JD Vance that sound straight out of the Kremlin.

And most ignore the sensible peace plan put forward by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has the best handle on how to curb Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression. (Even President Joe Biden hasn't paid it due attention.)

It's time to take a closer look at the use and misuse of the phrase peace talks when it comes to Ukraine — and to examine why Trump's plan would likely lead to more wars. First, one must determine on what basis peace talks could be held.

Putin has no interest in talks unless they are based on total capitulation. He demands Ukraine cede the 20% of its land that Russia now occupies, disarm and agree never to join NATO. This would clearly be suicidal since he has broken every pact Russia has made with Ukraine. The Russian leader would use such a deal to give his army a breather and then restart the war.

Trump claims he could solve the Ukraine problem with his pal Putin in 24 hours. Bamboozled by the Russian leader (with whom he reportedly has had seven phone calls since leaving office), Trump views the Ukraine war as a simple quarrel over disputed territory. In reality, it is an existential battle for Ukraine's survival against a brutal invasion by a Kremlin czar who insists that Ukraine is a renegade region of the Russian empire.

Here at home, the MAGA czar is ready to slash all Ukraine aid if Zelenskyy won't kowtow to his Putin-esque version of peace talks. He appears oblivious to the security costs of handing Moscow a victory over Ukraine.

Russia is testing the will of Western democracies to stand up to a new axis of authoritarian states, including China, Iran and North Korea. Moscow is carrying out terrorist attacks and assassinations in Western European countries while blatantly interfering in European elections and ours. The Kremlin is threatening freedom of the seas around Europe and in the Arctic, aiding Iran in developing nuclear weapons, and allying closely with Beijing in coordinated efforts to undermine the West and Israel.

Yet, Trump sees forcing Zelenskyy to negotiate with Putin as little more than ridding himself of a Ukrainian nuisance. In lying rants about Ukraine, he vastly overinflates the dollar amount of U.S. aid while lying about European aid to Kyiv — European Union nations spend far more than we do.

Putin is clearly hoping for a MAGA victory.

This brings us to Zelenskyy's version of peace talks. The Ukrainian president rightly insists that any talks must be based on international law and the United Nations charter, which specifies that all U.N. members “must refrain from using force or threatening to use force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any other state.”

In other words, talks cannot be based on the demands of a dictator or the ego of a former U.S. president. Zelenskyy has been trying, with some success, to rally U.N. members to support his formulation, and thus put pressure on Putin to attend a peace summit. In this, he should be getting more U.S. and Western support.

Zelenskyy has also demanded the return of all occupied Ukrainian territories because he knows what Putin is doing to the people who live there. The Russians aim to wipe out any trace of Ukraine-ness, including language, school curriculum and culture. Anyone who objects is taken to “the basement” — meaning Russian torture chambers.

“This is why we need to be strong, not to lose our country,” Zelenskyy told me when I interviewed him in Kyiv in July.

Unfortunately, Western nations have failed to deliver critical air defenses and ammunition they promised to Ukraine, even as the White House sends its most advanced air defense system to Israel. And Biden still refuses to green-light the use of long-range U.S. missiles that could destroy the Russian aerodromes from which glide bombs are launched to destroy Ukraine's power system and cities.

“If we had the permission for deep strikes, and enough weapons and ammunition, we could win this war,” I was told by phone from Kyiv by Yehor Cherniev, deputy chairman of Ukraine's parliamentary committee on national security.

I agree.

“But there is no will from the West to give us this and we feel our partners are pushing us to negotiations,” Cherniev continued. “It's not our strategy, but it's our necessity in these circumstances.”

Even if there were a negotiated armistice, Ukraine would never recognize the Russian occupation of Ukrainian land and would continue diplomatic efforts to get that territory back.

Cherniev made a second point that is the key to any negotiations: “The part of Ukraine we still control should become part of NATO.” Otherwise, Putin would resume the fighting, which would be “worse because the Russians have learned some lessons.” Moreover, without security guarantees, investors would shun Ukraine, blocking any economic revival, and Ukrainian refugees living abroad would not return.

When I asked Zelenskyy in July what “real victory” would be, he stressed “security for today and future generations and the impossibility of the repetition of aggression.” He added, “The war must become significantly harder for Russia” before Putin would be forced to hold serious talks.

Yet, Biden did not support offering Ukraine an invitation to NATO at the Washington summit in July. Kamala Harris has strongly backed Kyiv and, if elected, might have more guts.

Or perhaps Biden will realize he still has a brief window to leave a positive legacy by green lighting long-range Ukrainian strikes inside Russia — and convincing his NATO allies to issue that desperately needed invitation to Ukraine.

Otherwise, peace talks would be nothing but surrender to Putin, or a gust of useless Washington hot air.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the The Philadelphia Inquirer.