accede to a 28-point plan outlining significant territorial concessions to Russia, substantial military restrictions and an immediate cessation of hostilities, or risk jeopardizing vital US support.. The proposal, reportedly formulated through ongoing negotiations with Moscow, has plunged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into a precarious position, forcing a stark choice between territorial integrity and the potential loss of a critical ally.
Zelenskyy, in a daily video address, acknowledged the unprecedented pressure facing his nation. He characterized the dilemma as a potential sacrifice of national dignity or acceptance of an exceptionally harsh winter – a veiled reference to the prospect of diminished Western aid and the intensified vulnerabilities that would entail. While pledging to cooperate “calmly and swiftly” with the US and its partners to achieve a resolution, the implied discontent with the terms is palpable.
Detailed discussions, involving US Vice President JD Vance and the United States Secretary of the Army, Daniel Driscoll, reportedly focused on the specifics of the proposed settlement. Zelenskyy, via Telegram, indicated a commitment to further collaboration with the US and European stakeholders at a consultative level, aiming to “make the path to peace truly viable”. However, the contents of that path have caused considerable consternation within the Ukrainian government and among international observers.
According to media reporting, the 28-point plan envisions the formal cession of the Crimean Peninsula, the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk and significant portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to Russian control. This would represent a loss of roughly one-quarter of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, a prospect viewed by many as an abdication of long-held principles of national sovereignty. The plan also stipulates the transfer of control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to Russia, raising immediate and severe safety concerns.
Further restrictions outlined in the proposal include a mandated reduction in Ukraine’s military size, a constitutional prohibition against NATO membership and a commitment from NATO to exclude further expansion. While security guarantees are offered, they are explicitly conditional upon the absence of NATO troops deployed within Ukrainian territory. A pathway to EU membership is presented for the remaining, diminished Ukrainian state, contingent upon adherence to the agreed terms.
The plan’s stipulations extend to a formalized immediate ceasefire and a re-acknowledgment of Ukrainian sovereignty by Russia – a provision reminiscent of previous, largely ineffective agreements from the 1990s. A controversial aspect of the accord involves a blanket amnesty for war crimes committed in Ukraine, potentially shielding perpetrators from accountability. Furthermore, the proposal dictates the rapid staging of new elections within the country, a condition viewed by critics as a potential attempt to impose a pro-Russian government.
The sudden presentation of such detailed and far-reaching demands raises questions about the extent of US involvement in shaping the negotiation framework and the potential divergence between official policy and behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Critics argue that the proposal effectively rewards Russian aggression and undermines the long-term security of Ukraine, while proponents suggest it represents a pragmatic attempt to avert a protracted and increasingly devastating conflict. The coming days will be critical in determining Ukraine’s response and the future trajectory of the war.