Territorial Concessions to Russia, Neutral Ukraine, and a Peace Framework That Bypasses Europe
U.S. President Donald Trump has today officially confirmed that he stands behind the draft of the “28-point plan” to end the war in Ukraine—a document that has been secretly prepared in recent weeks through channels between the White House and Russian envoys. Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office has confirmed that the draft has been received in Kyiv and announced a conversation with Trump “in the coming days,” while a U.S. military delegation is simultaneously in the Ukrainian capital. This is the most concrete political-diplomatic attempt to formally “freeze” the war since the Russian offensive began in 2022, and it comes at a moment when Russian forces are capturing new positions around Pokrovsk, and a missile strike on Ternopil in western Ukraine has claimed at least 26 lives.
According to multiple sources, the draft was developed in a tight circle around Trump: special envoy Steve Witkoff led multi-day talks with Russian economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev in Miami, and shaping it involved Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The key concept is borrowed from an earlier model, a framework agreement consisting of a series of very concrete, numbered elements. In this case, the 28 points are grouped into four thematic “blocks”: (1) peace in Ukraine, (2) security guarantees, (3) broader security in Europe, and (4) future relations between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine.
The official text has not yet been published, and neither Washington nor Moscow is publicly presenting it as a finalized agreement. The Kremlin formally claims that “no consultations are underway,” emphasizing that Russia’s position was already stated at the summer Trump–Putin summit, while from the White House come only general statements about “developing ideas to end the war.” The Ukrainian government and European NATO members, according to diplomatic sources, were not involved in drafting the document at all but were informed about it afterward, which is causing nervousness in Brussels and the impression that the fate of the war-torn country is being negotiated without them.
The most sensitive part concerns territory. According to leaks of the content, the draft envisions Russia gaining full control over Crimea and the entire Donbas, including the remaining approximately 14 percent of Donetsk region’s territory still held by Ukrainian forces, for which Kyiv has paid with tens of thousands of lives. Ukrainian forces would have to completely withdraw from those areas, which would formally become a demilitarized zone under the supervision of neutral peacekeeping forces—without the presence of either Russian or Ukrainian troops. In the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, it appears a freeze of the combat line at current positions is proposed, with the possibility that in some future phase Russia would relinquish part of the occupied territory in exchange for additional political or security concessions.
Another key element relates to the legal status of those territories. According to some versions of the draft, the U.S. and some mediator states would be prepared to de facto recognize Russian sovereignty over Donbas and Crimea, without formally requiring Ukraine to do the same. Such a step would open space for partial lifting or at least suspension of some U.S. sanctions on Russia, with provided “snap-back” clauses—automatic reimposition of sanctions in the event of a new Russian offensive. In practice, this would mean that the territorial changes Russia has forcibly achieved from 2014 to today are confirmed in an international political framework initiated by Washington.
The security section of the draft directly encroaches on Kyiv’s previous red lines. Ukraine would have to commit to abandoning its course toward NATO membership—either through a political declaration or a constitutional amendment returning the country to its previous status of military neutrality. In return, U.S. and Western “security guarantees” are envisioned, but it is not yet clear whether this would involve a classic military alliance or a softer model: a UN Security Council resolution, confirmation from BRICS states, and a series of bilateral agreements on arms supplies and reimposition of sanctions in the event of new aggression. Russia would, according to the same sources, formally recognize Ukraine’s right to join the European Union, but not the NATO alliance.
The second block deals with the demilitarization of Ukraine itself. The draft assumes that the Ukrainian army must be reduced by about 60 percent—to a maximum of 400,000 personnel—with strict limits on the structure and equipment of the armed forces. Particular emphasis is placed on the ban on possession and use of certain categories of long-range weaponry capable of striking targets deep in Russian territory, while deliveries of Western missiles and projectiles of that type would be permanently halted. At the same time, U.S. military aid would be redirected from offensive capabilities to air defense and infrastructure, with strict controls on quantities and types of weapons.
The draft also features proposals that encroach on identity issues. According to what some Ukrainian and Western media have published, the Russian language would gain the status of a second official language in Ukraine, and one of the pro-Russian factions of the Orthodox Church would be returned to full legal status and state protection. These provisions will likely provoke strong resistance from Ukrainian nationalists, for whom language policy is one of the central markers of state independence since 2014. The authors of the draft, however, are counting on the fact that the majority of Russian-speaking citizens remained loyal to the Ukrainian state even during the war, so such a move should serve as a kind of internal “reconciliation package.”
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office is reacting measuredly for now. In a short statement, it confirmed that the draft has been received and that the president has “outlined the fundamental principles important to our people,” with a message that Ukraine is ready to “work constructively” with America and European allies, but that peace must be “just and lasting.” Zelenskyy now expects a direct conversation with Trump. At the same time, signals from Kyiv indicate that work is underway with European governments on an alternative proposal—although, as things stand now, no European draft has a realistic chance of being accepted in Moscow.
Reactions in Europe and the United States itself are already divided. European foreign ministers are repeating that “peace cannot be capitulation,” warning that heavy territorial and military concessions are being demanded of Kyiv, while there are no visible obligations from the Russian side beyond what Moscow has been demanding since the start of the war. An Estonian politician leading European diplomacy warns that genuine Russian concessions or willingness for an unconditional ceasefire have never been heard. In Washington, a portion of Republicans close to Kyiv is openly expressing concern that the draft is “too favorable to Moscow,” while admitting that they know almost nothing about the details of the plan because Congress has not yet been formally briefed.
Moscow is approaching all of this with a dual stance: officially downplaying the significance of the U.S. initiative and insisting that no new “consultations” exist, while the same reports emphasize that the Russian side considers this framework to finally take its security demands seriously—territorial gains, permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and limits on its army. A portion of Russian hardliners is already warning that too much yielding to the other side would represent a “betrayal of the victims,” showing that even in Moscow, a potential deal would not pass without internal tensions.
An important caveat is that the public—neither in Ukraine nor Russia, nor in the West—still has no insight into the full text of all 28 points. Different leaks sometimes differ in nuances—for example, regarding the scope of future security guarantees or precise figures for limiting the Ukrainian army—but the basic architecture of the draft remains the same: recognition of most of Russia’s war aims in exchange for formally stopping the war and a set of promises that the conflict will not resume in the near future. In such a framework, the coming days will likely be marked by intense diplomatic “maneuvering”—Kyiv and European allies will seek amendments that at least partially soften what they call capitulatory elements, while the Trump administration will strive to prove that this draft is the only realistic option for a quick end to the war.
About the Author
