A Fragile Blueprint: What the Controversial “28-Point” Peace Plan Means for Ukraine and Europe
- Bayan Peikari
- Dec 3
- 3 min read
For a brief period in late November 2025, an unexpected diplomatic document captured global attention: a U.S.-backed 28-point peace framework designed to chart a path out of the Russia-Ukraine war. Reports indicated that the plan, initially leaked on November 19, 2025, was drafted amid back-channel discussions involving U.S. and Russian officials. It quickly became a geopolitical lightning rod, highlighting divisions within the U.S. administration, raising alarm among European allies, and provoking a rebuke from Kyiv over perceived concessions to Moscow.
Origins and Significance of the Plan
According to reporting, the 28-point framework drew on Russian proposals submitted to U.S. officials and was shaped by direct communications between U.S. envoys and Russian representatives. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later confirmed the authenticity of the draft, describing it as a "living, breathing document" intended as a starting point rather than a final agreement. President Donald J. Trump publicly emphasized on November 22, 2025, that the draft was not his final offer.
The drafting process caused controversy within Washington. Some senior U.S. officials reportedly learned of the plan late, while a limited negotiating team, including Trump’s representative Steven Witkoff, led the drafting process. The unusual authorship and lack of full interagency involvement prompted questions about the plan's legitimacy and alignment with broader U.S. policy.
Key Provisions of the Draft Plan
Publicly leaked summaries and excerpts revealed controversial items, including:
Limiting the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 600,000 personnel, with the European counterproposal raising the cap to 800,000 in peacetime.
Prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO, though the European version allowed for eventual membership under consensus.
Recognizing Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto Russian territory while freezing lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
Imposing vague U.S. security guarantees contingent on Ukraine’s compliance and Russian actions.
Establishing joint U.S.-Russia economic projects using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction, with a portion of the profits benefiting the United States (Cancian and Snegovaya 2025; New York Times 2025).
Other provisions addressed EU membership eligibility, humanitarian programs, prisoner exchanges, and monitoring mechanisms for implementation. The European counterproposal modified several points to be less pro-Russian, ensuring that Ukraine would not be forced to cede additional territory or accept overly restrictive security measures.
European and Ukrainian Reactions
The leaked plan prompted swift pushback. French, German, and UK officials circulated a counterproposal that emphasized Ukraine's territorial integrity, increased military caps, and eliminated U.S. control of frozen Russian funds. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced the challenge of appearing supportive of the U.S.-led process while rejecting provisions considered unfavorable to Ukraine. European diplomats stressed that borders cannot be changed by force and pressed for stronger guarantees and accountability mechanisms.
Russian Response
Moscow indicated cautious openness to the draft as a negotiating starting point. Russian officials, including Kirill Dmitriev, a top negotiator, framed this as proof that the West was considering Russian positions. However, the Kremlin maintained hard-line expectations regarding territorial and security concessions.
Why the 28-Point Plan Matters
Three key takeaways emerge from the plan’s brief life:
Process Matters as Much as Content: Early inclusion of European allies and interagency buy-in in Washington are crucial for legitimacy. The initial drafting process highlighted gaps in both.
Territorial Red Lines Are Politically Sensitive: Provisions appearing to normalize Russian gains risk delegitimizing Ukrainian sovereignty and alienating domestic and European publics.
Guarantees Must Be Credible: Vague or conditional security assurances undermine confidence in the framework and leave Ukraine vulnerable if Russia does not comply.
Conclusion
The 28-point peace plan represents a tentative starting point rather than a finished agreement. It underscores the complexities of negotiating a ceasefire, balancing territorial claims, and ensuring enforceable security guarantees. Ongoing negotiations, European counterproposals, and adjustments by U.S. and Ukrainian officials will shape whether a sustainable settlement is possible.
Sources:
Cancian, Mark F., and Maria Snegovaya. 2025. "The Unfinished Plan for Peace in Ukraine: Provision by Provision." Center for Strategic and International Studies. November 24, 2025. Link
New York Times. 2025. "Trump’s Peace Plan in Ukraine Stirs Concern Over Russian Gains." November 22, 2025. Link
Reuters. 2025. “Putin: Russia agrees Trump’s Ukraine plan can be used as a basis for future agreements.” Reuters, November 27, 2025. Link
The Guardian. 2025. “Putin says US peace plan could form basis for end to Ukraine war – as it happened.” The Guardian, November 27, 2025. Link
Washington Post (O'Grady, Siobhán; Francis, Ellen; Dixon, Robyn). 2025. “Confident of military success, Putin refuses compromise in Moscow talks.” The Washington Post, December 3, 2025. Link
