A 28-point “peace plan” drafted by American and Russian envoys would require Ukraine to surrender vast swathes of territory currently occupied by Russia, cap the size of its army, and gradually lift sanctions on Moscow, in other words, to rubber-stamp most of President Vladimir Putin’s war aims under the polite label of compromise.
According to the plan, the Ukrainian regions of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be “recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.” Kyiv would also be obliged to hold elections within 100 days and abandon any pretence of joining NATO, a detail presented as “pragmatism,” though Ukrainians might recognise it as capitulation.
Ukrainian forces would withdraw from the remaining, still-Ukrainian parts of Donetsk, which would become a “neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as belonging to the Russian Federation.” Russian troops, the document assures us with touching optimism, would not enter this zone.
In exchange for this geopolitical self-amputation, Ukraine would receive a US security guarantee, for a fee, naturally, while Washington would pocket 50% of all reconstruction and investment profits. America would also pursue a “new economic partnership” with Russia once sanctions were lifted, proving once again that in international politics, morality is a negotiable commodity.
Nearly every element of the plan consists of proposals Ukraine and its allies have previously rejected outright. Although President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he is “reviewing” the plan, nothing suggests he intends to swallow a document that effectively requires Ukraine to amputate itself, demilitarise, and thank everyone afterwards. NATO members would also block such an idea, since the plan would shackle the Alliance’s freedom to expand, something that requires unanimous consent from its 32 members.
“What troubles me is the lack of effort that went into this,” said Julianne Smith, President Biden’s former ambassador to NATO. “This plan would be dismissed immediately by many people, starting with Zelensky. He’s being cautious for now, but I can’t imagine any scenario in which he’d accept this.”
The latest proposal was crafted by President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Putin’s envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, an arrangement that, unsurprisingly, has already stirred Ukrainian suspicion and European hostility. Axios published the text on Thursday. The White House has not commented.
While some inside the administration insist the plan has Trump’s backing, others close to the talks, speaking anonymously because, of course, this is Washington, say negotiations are ongoing. A US military delegation, led by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, was in Kyiv this week exploring options, including increasing military support. Apparently, even while dangling a peace plan that strips Ukraine of its territory, Washington still wishes to appear helpful.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, taking a harder line than Witkoff, said negotiators would continue “developing a list of potential ideas to end the war based on input from both parties.” The vagueness of the phrasing speaks for itself.
The concessions to Moscow and to the United States are extraordinary and would require the blessing of countries not even involved in these latest conversations. Ukraine would not only promise never to join NATO; it would have to write this self-denial into its constitution. Russia would be restored to the G8, neatly ending its international isolation, an idea Western members would block instantly.
Washington would also receive a sizeable financial reward. Roughly $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be directed to US-led reconstruction, with the US taking a 50% profit share. Unspent frozen assets would be funnelled into a US–Russia investment fund, because nothing says “lasting peace” like joint portfolio management.
No one knows how much room Zelensky actually has to reject the plan, nor whether Washington is prepared to use weapons and intelligence supply as leverage. Trump’s national security team has been in contact with both Russian and Ukrainian officials, and the president supports the plan, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
“I won’t get into details, because the plan is evolving,” she said. “The president supports it. It’s a good plan for Russia and Ukraine, and we think both sides should accept it.” A statement only possible in a world where words have been freed from meaning.
Allies responded quickly and negatively. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated that any peace must have Ukraine’s consent. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said the same.
“Many of the points raised are highly problematic,” Mitsotakis said at the New Economy Forum in Singapore. “We have been very clear that the best security guarantee for Ukraine is a strong Ukrainian army.”
His comments echoed those of the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, who insists Kyiv must be involved in any peace plan allegedly designed for its benefit.
Although the plan gives Russia much of what it wants, it does impose a few polite, vague constraints, such as not invading other countries, and writing into law a promise not to attack Europe again. Russia has broken such promises before, but hope springs eternal.