The Trump administration has circulated a 28-point draft plan to end the Russia‑Ukraine war that would require Kyiv to forgo NATO membership, recognize Russian control over occupied territories and accept limits on its armed forces, while opening the door to reconstruction funding and closer economic ties between Washington and Moscow. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signaled deep concern and resistance over the terms, even as U.S. officials press for rapid progress, and European leaders publicly reaffirm that any settlement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The 28-point draft peace plan, drawn up by U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev, has been developed largely between Washington and Moscow without meaningful Ukrainian or broader European participation, according to detailed accounts in Slate and other outlets.
Slate reports that the proposal closely tracks long‑standing Kremlin demands, including requiring Ukraine to recognize Russia’s control over Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, as well as effectively freezing the front lines in partially occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as a buffer zone.
According to a copy of the draft obtained by Sky News and other media, the plan would:
- Cap the size of the Ukrainian armed forces at 600,000 personnel, down from an estimated 800,000–880,000 today;
- Require Ukraine to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and for NATO to formally rule out Ukrainian membership and agree not to station NATO troops on Ukrainian territory;
- Confirm that Ukraine would not be allowed to host NATO forces, while European fighter jets would instead be based in Poland;
- Provide for Ukraine to be eligible for European Union membership and to receive a substantial reconstruction package partly financed by frozen Russian state assets;
- Reinstate Russia into the G8 and progressively lift many Western sanctions, alongside a new U.S.–Russia economic cooperation framework in sectors such as energy and critical minerals.
Under the draft, about $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be directed to U.S.-led reconstruction and investment projects in Ukraine, with the United States taking a significant share of future profits, while European partners would add additional funds for rebuilding, Sky News and Bloomberg report. Russia would, in turn, be reintegrated into the global economy and invited back into the G8, though details of sanctions relief would be phased and conditional.
The document also calls for Ukraine to hold national elections within 100 days of the agreement’s entry into force. It outlines broad, but still vague, security guarantees for Kyiv, including a non‑aggression framework among Russia, Ukraine and Europe, and an expectation that Russia will not invade neighboring states while NATO pledges not to expand further. Analysts quoted by Associated Press and other outlets note that in several places the language is framed as expectations rather than hard, enforceable commitments from Moscow.
Some elements initially reported in commentary and early leaks — such as explicit bans on Ukrainian missile strikes against specific Russian cities, blanket amnesties for combatants and politicians, or a requirement that Russia be fully readmitted to the G8 on a fixed timetable — do not appear in the detailed drafts published by Sky News and summarized by Bloomberg and AFP, and remain unconfirmed.
Pressure on Kyiv
The Daily Wire reports, citing Ukrainian and U.S. sources, that Zelensky recently held a roughly one‑hour call with U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, during which the U.S. side laid out aspects of the plan and the administration’s desired timeline. According to that account, Zelensky said Ukraine was examining the “American side’s proposals for ending the war” and stressed that any path forward must be “dignified and truly effective for achieving a lasting peace,” language that tracks with his public insistence that Ukraine’s sovereignty and dignity cannot be compromised.
In public remarks reported by multiple outlets, Zelensky has described the current moment as one of the most difficult in Ukraine’s modern history and has warned that the proposed deal, in its present form, risks undermining the country’s freedom. The Guardian and other publications say he has rejected the idea of formal territorial concessions to Russia and vowed to present counter‑proposals consistent with Ukraine’s constitution.
According to The Daily Wire and other U.S. media citing unnamed officials, elements of the Trump administration have suggested that U.S. intelligence sharing and weapons supplies could be scaled back if Kyiv refuses to engage with the framework by a Thanksgiving‑week deadline. The Washington Post likewise reports that U.S. envoys, including Driscoll, have pressed Ukrainian officials in Kyiv with what one European diplomat described as an “aggressive timeline” for at least agreeing in principle to the outline.
Administration officials, including White House press aides, have publicly framed the proposal as a “realistic” path to ending a war that has dragged on for nearly four years, emphasizing that it reflects battlefield realities and offers Ukraine strong, if still undefined, Western security guarantees. Critics, however, argue that the guarantees are too vague and that many of the trade‑offs favor Moscow.
European leaders push back
European governments have reacted cautiously to the plan and, in many cases, sharply criticized its core concessions. The Guardian, Associated Press and other outlets report that senior officials in Germany, France and the United Kingdom have all reiterated that any peace agreement must be negotiated with Kyiv and cannot be imposed from outside.
Reporting in Slate and other European media indicates that Germany’s new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has stressed that Ukraine can continue to “count on” Berlin and that the current line of contact inside Ukraine should be a starting point for discussions, not a pretext for legitimizing Russian annexations. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned that this is a “very dangerous moment,” insisting that only Ukrainians can decide the terms of peace.
Ukraine’s defense minister, Rustem Umerov, has publicly denied claims that he has privately endorsed the draft, stating that Kyiv will not accept any proposal that formalizes the loss of Ukrainian territory or violates its sovereignty, according to European and Ukrainian media cited by Slate.
Moscow’s response and battlefield context
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the U.S. proposal could serve as a basis for negotiations and urged Kyiv to make what he called a “responsible decision,” according to Reuters and AFP. He has also signaled that Russian forces will continue to advance if Ukraine rejects the deal.
Independent tallies and recent Western reporting estimate that Russian troops now control roughly one‑fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea, most of Luhansk, large parts of Donetsk and extensive areas of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Local officials in western Ukraine have reported a series of recent Russian missile and drone strikes, including attacks on cities such as Ternopil that have caused civilian casualties. While some early accounts in commentary suggested specific casualty figures and numbers of children killed, those details vary across outlets and have not been independently verified.
Comparison with Gaza diplomacy
Some commentators have contrasted the Ukraine draft with Trump’s approach to a ceasefire in Gaza, under which the U.S. has more explicitly prioritized an immediate halt to hostilities before a comprehensive political settlement. In Ukraine, by contrast, the 28-point plan seeks to lock in far‑reaching territorial and security arrangements as part of a single package, a structure that critics say risks codifying the consequences of Russia’s invasion rather than reversing them.
While negotiations over the U.S.–Russian proposal continue in various diplomatic channels, Ukraine’s leadership, much of Europe and many analysts remain deeply skeptical that the current framework can deliver what Zelensky has repeatedly called a just and durable peace.
