A widely leaked draft of a 28-point peace plan backed by former President Donald Trump represents a significant step backward for Ukraine, echoing maximalist positions Russia held during failed negotiations in 2022. Co-authored by Russian figures, the proposal was initially dismissed by European and Ukrainian officials as too unrealistic to gain traction.
The timing of this revived, Moscow-driven plan is critical. Russian forces currently hold their strongest military position in a year. They are on the verge of capturing the strategic eastern hub of Pokrovsk after months of intense fighting. Its fall would open a path through flat, open terrain for a swift advance toward central Ukraine. Simultaneously, Moscow has achieved a breakout in the Zaporizhzhia region, moving its forces closer to Zaporizhzhia city and securing vulnerable territory ahead of winter.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges, including manpower shortages exacerbated by high desertion and draft-avoidance rates. Its drone superiority has also been eroded by rapid Russian adaptation and innovation. Politically, President Volodymyr Zelensky is facing diminished popularity amid an ongoing corruption scandal affecting his inner circle and linked to the country’s critical energy infrastructure.
Moscow’s initiative is strategically timed to exploit this moment of Ukrainian vulnerability, where a domestic political crisis coincides with emergencies on the front line. This may explain why Russia has reintroduced a series of demands that Kyiv and its allies have repeatedly rejected.
The 28 points serve a dual purpose for the Kremlin: they establish an exceptionally advantageous starting position for any future talks and provide a framework to stall diplomacy while its military maintains the upper hand. Key articles resurrect demands from the 2022 Istanbul talks, such as requiring Ukraine to constitutionally reject NATO membership, guarantee neutrality, “de-Nazify,” and limit the size of its armed forces—terms that effectively amount to a form of surrender.
The proposal contains several deeply problematic clauses. While the use of $100 billion in frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine appears to be a concession, these funds would be directed to Russian-occupied territories and administered by Moscow under its own terms. The deal also proposes that half of any reconstruction profits go to the United States and that all international sanctions against Russia be lifted.
Furthermore, the plan demands elections be held within 100 days of an agreement, a deadline widely seen as logistically impossible. A rushed and poorly executed vote could produce a government with questionable legitimacy and create an environment ripe for Russian manipulation.
Another contentious point is the proposal to turn Ukrainian-controlled parts of the Donbas region into a demilitarized zone under Russian “civilian” control. This would mean surrendering territory, including the strategic city of Kramatorsk, that Moscow would otherwise have to fight for. Ceding Kramatorsk is a non-starter for Zelensky, as it would provide Russia with a military bulwark for future offensives and expose him to severe domestic political challenges.
Finally, the draft is filled with vague language and “snapback” clauses that heavily favor Russia. One clause states that Ukraine’s security guarantees will be “deemed invalid” if it fires a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg “without cause”—a condition open to broad and self-serving interpretation by the Kremlin. Another demand—that all “Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected or prohibited”—leverages a persistent Russian disinformation narrative and could be used as a pretext to nullify the agreement based on flimsy evidence.
Although Moscow’s insistence on these maximalist terms has previously angered the Trump administration and led to sanctions, the Kremlin is now calculating its advantages. It is capitalizing on its battlefield momentum, Ukraine’s internal struggles, European concerns about long-term funding, and Trump’s perceived desire for a deal. For Moscow, reintroducing old demands at a moment of strength is a logical strategic move. If the plan buys time for its military or anchors future negotiations on its terms, it will be considered a success.
Source link
