28-point proposal requires territorial concessions and military limits, drawing criticism from European allies and Ukrainian lawmakers
Aggressive Timeline for Diplomatic Resolution
The Trump administration is pressuring Ukraine to accept a comprehensive 28-point peace framework by Thanksgiving, setting an ambitious deadline for ending a war that has raged for nearly four years. The proposal, which surfaced publicly this week through multiple diplomatic channels, has sparked intense debate about the future of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the balance of power in Eastern Europe.
President Donald Trump confirmed the Thanksgiving target Friday morning, telling the Brian Kilmeade Show that the deadline is “appropriate” while maintaining that U.S. sanctions on Russia would remain in place during negotiations. The plan, which Trump has reviewed and supports, represents the administration’s most detailed attempt yet to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
According to multiple sources who have reviewed the draft, including Ukrainian officials who shared details with international media, the proposal would require Ukraine to make significant concessions that Kyiv has consistently rejected in previous negotiations. The plan was reportedly developed by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, following meetings with Russian and Ukrainian officials.
Territorial and Military Concessions at Center of Controversy
The most contentious elements of the peace plan involve territorial recognition and military constraints. Under the draft proposal, Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be recognized “as de facto Russian, including by the United States,” representing a dramatic reversal of longstanding U.S. policy supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Additionally, the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be “frozen along the line of contact,” effectively ceding additional Ukrainian territory to Russian control.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations’ analysis of the Ukraine conflict, such territorial concessions would reward Russian aggression and potentially set dangerous precedents for international law. The proposal would require Ukrainian forces to withdraw from parts of Donetsk Oblast they currently control, creating a neutral demilitarized buffer zone that would be internationally recognized as Russian territory.
The plan also imposes significant military limitations on Ukraine. The country would be required to cap its armed forces at 600,000 troops and commit to never joining NATO, both demands that Moscow has made since the war’s inception. Ukraine would additionally have to remain a non-nuclear state and accept restrictions on foreign military deployments within its borders.
Security Guarantees and Economic Provisions
To balance these concessions, the plan includes provisions for security guarantees and economic reconstruction. Ukraine would “receive reliable security guarantees,” and the document states that if Russia invades again, there would be “a decisive coordinated military response.” However, the enforcement mechanism for these guarantees remains unclear, with the plan calling for a “Peace Council” to be headed by President Trump himself.
According to RAND Corporation research on security guarantees, the credibility of such assurances depends heavily on specific commitments from guarantor nations and the institutional frameworks established to enforce them. The vague language in the current draft has raised concerns among European allies about whether the guarantees would prove meaningful in practice.
On the economic front, the plan envisions substantial investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction. Some $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be directed toward Ukraine, with European nations contributing an additional $100 billion. The United States would lead a joint infrastructure development effort with Ukraine, including modernizing gas pipelines and storage facilities.
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, currently under Russian control, would be “launched under the supervision of the IAEA,” with electricity produced distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine. This provision attempts to address one of the war’s most dangerous flashpoints while creating economic interdependence between the adversaries.
Diplomatic Responses and International Reactions
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed his nation Friday in a somber 10-minute video, acknowledging the difficulty of Ukraine’s position. “This is one of the most difficult moments in our history,” Zelensky said. “Currently, the pressure on Ukraine is one of the hardest. Ukraine may now face a very difficult choice, either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner, either the difficult 28 points, or a very difficult winter.”
Despite his concerns, Zelensky indicated willingness to engage with the proposal. Following a phone call with Vice President JD Vance and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, Zelensky posted on social media that Ukraine had agreed to work with the U.S. and Europe on making “the path to peace truly doable.” He emphasized that Ukraine “views every realistic proposal positively” while respecting Trump’s “desire to put an end to the bloodshed.”
According to Chatham House analysis of Ukraine’s diplomatic position, Zelensky faces an extraordinarily difficult balancing act between maintaining Western support and protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. Keir Giles, a senior fellow at Chatham House, characterized the U.S. plan as having “terms that are unenforceable, nonsensical and vague.”
European Concerns and Allied Divisions
European allies have responded with a mixture of concern and outright rejection of key provisions in the Trump plan. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb warned that “matters concerning Ukraine are for Ukraine to decide,” adding that “decisions about Europe cannot be made without Europe’s involvement.” German government sources indicated that European leaders are rallying behind Zelensky and insisting that Ukraine’s military must retain the ability to defend its sovereignty.
Victoria Podgorna, a Ukrainian lawmaker with Zelensky’s Servant of the People party, questioned why the proposals “seem to be based almost entirely on Russia’s demands.” Jessica Berlin, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, characterized the proposals as “essentially the Kremlin’s wish list” that had been “amateurishly formulated.”
However, not all European leaders have been critical. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, known for his closer ties to Moscow, praised Trump’s initiative on social media. “The American President is a persistent maverick,” Orban wrote. “If he had been President at the time, the war would never have broken out.”
Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Roger Wicker expressed significant reservations from the Republican side. “Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin,” Wicker said in a statement. “In particular, any suggestion that we can pursue arms control with a serial liar and killer like Putin should be treated with great skepticism.”
Russian Positioning and Strategic Calculations
Russian President Vladimir Putin struck a notably positive tone when discussing the proposal Friday, saying the plan “could form the basis of a final peace settlement.” However, he qualified this optimism by noting that Russia had not “substantively” discussed the plan with the U.S., speculating that the Trump administration had been “unable to secure the agreement of the Ukrainian side.”
Putin indicated readiness to show “flexibility” while emphasizing that Russia was continuing to advance toward its military objectives in Ukraine. The Kremlin’s relatively welcoming response to the plan stands in contrast to Ukraine’s anguish, suggesting to critics that the proposal heavily favors Russian interests.
According to International Institute for Strategic Studies analysis, Russia’s forces are currently in perhaps their strongest military position in over a year. Russian troops are approaching the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a logistics hub of significant strategic importance, and have made gains in the Zaporizhzhia region. This battlefield momentum gives Moscow leverage in negotiations and little incentive to compromise.
Sanctions and Economic Considerations
The peace plan addresses the complex web of economic sanctions imposed on Russia since the invasion began. While Trump stated Friday that he has no plans to lift sanctions immediately, the plan calls for sanctions to be lifted in stages as peace terms are implemented. Frozen Russian assets beyond the $100 billion allocated to Ukraine would be “plowed into a joint U.S.-Russia investment fund,” creating economic incentives for Russian compliance.
The plan also includes provisions for Russia to rejoin the global economy, addressing Moscow’s isolation from Western financial systems. These economic elements represent significant potential rewards for Russia, contingent on adhering to the peace agreement’s terms.
Critics argue that offering sanctions relief effectively rewards Russian aggression and undermines the international sanctions regime’s deterrent effect. Supporters counter that economic integration provides leverage to ensure Russian compliance and creates mutual interests in maintaining peace.
Military and Battlefield Context
The timing of the peace push comes as Ukraine faces serious challenges on multiple fronts. According to the Institute for the Study of War, Russian forces have maintained pressure across the front lines, with Ukrainian troops near Pokrovsk under intense assault. Military analysts suggest the city could fall within weeks, potentially opening pathways for Russian advances toward larger population centers.
Ukraine continues to struggle with manpower issues, including high desertion rates and draft avoidance. The country’s drone advantage, which had helped offset Russian numerical superiority, has eroded as Moscow has adapted its tactics and developed counter-measures. These military realities strengthen Russia’s negotiating position and increase pressure on Kyiv to reach an agreement while it still controls significant territory.
A devastating Russian aerial attack on Ternopil in western Ukraine Wednesday killed at least 26 people and injured numerous others, demonstrating Moscow’s continued willingness to strike deep into Ukrainian territory. Such attacks underscore the humanitarian costs of the war’s continuation and add urgency to peace efforts.
Implementation Challenges and Skepticism
Even if all parties agree to the framework, substantial challenges remain in implementation. The plan’s language on key issues remains vague, and mechanisms for enforcing its provisions are underdeveloped. The proposed Peace Council headed by Trump raises questions about what happens if the president leaves office or loses interest in the issue.
Arms control provisions calling for negotiations on reducing nuclear arsenals and extending existing treaties face their own obstacles, given the long history of difficult U.S.-Russia arms control diplomacy. The plan calls for a “non-aggression agreement” between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, but the means of ensuring compliance are unclear beyond the threat of renewed conflict.
Humanitarian provisions include prisoner exchanges on an “all for all” basis, return of civilian detainees and hostages including children, and family reunification programs. The plan also calls for “full amnesty” for all parties involved in the conflict, a provision that may face resistance from those seeking accountability for war crimes.
Domestic Political Implications
The peace initiative carries significant political stakes for Trump domestically. The president has made ending the Ukraine war a priority, and success could bolster his foreign policy credentials. However, a deal perceived as capitulation to Russia could face fierce criticism from both Republicans and Democrats concerned about abandoning a democratic ally and rewarding aggression.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the plan’s balance, stating that “any deal must provide full security guarantees and deterrence for Ukraine, Europe, and Russia to ensure the end of the war.” She rejected suggestions the plan favored Moscow, insisting the administration had “talked equally with both sides” to create it.
The administration faces the challenge of securing Congressional support for any agreement, particularly if it involves lifting sanctions or committing U.S. resources to reconstruction efforts. The plan’s requirement that Ukraine’s parliament ratify any final agreement adds another layer of complexity, as domestic Ukrainian politics could complicate acceptance even if Zelensky agrees to the framework.
Looking Ahead
As the Thanksgiving deadline approaches, all parties face difficult decisions. For Ukraine, accepting the plan means recognizing territorial losses and accepting constraints on its sovereignty. Rejecting it risks losing American support at a moment of battlefield vulnerability. For Russia, the plan offers sanctions relief and de facto recognition of territorial gains, but requires commitments to cease aggression that Moscow may be unwilling to make.
The coming days will likely see intensive diplomatic activity as the U.S. consults more closely with European allies who were largely excluded from the plan’s initial drafting. Trump’s stated goal of achieving peace by the end of 2025 reflects his administration’s sense of urgency, though whether that timeline proves realistic remains highly uncertain.
The peace plan represents a high-stakes gamble that could either end Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II or entrench divisions and set dangerous precedents for international law. As one European diplomat characterized the situation, it may be “Groundhog Day” a return to maximalist positions that have been rejected before but with the added pressure of Ukraine’s deteriorating battlefield position and questions about Western staying power.
Whatever happens in the coming week, the Trump administration’s peace initiative has fundamentally reshaped the diplomatic landscape around the Ukraine war, forcing all parties to confront difficult choices about the trade-offs between peace, justice, and sovereignty.
