The Latest US Peace Proposal for Ukraine and Russia

When a 28-point US-backed peace proposal for Ukraine quietly began circulating in diplomatic circles this week, it landed like a thunderclap in Kyiv, Moscow and across Western capitals. Leaked drafts suggest the plan would fundamentally reshape not only Ukraine’s borders and military, but the post-Cold War security order in Europe itself.

Supporters in Washington frame it as a “realistic” end to a grinding war that has entered its fourth year. Critics call it a blueprint for rewarding aggression. Ukraine, fighting for survival, is being asked to choose between holding the line on sovereignty or risking the loss of its most important military backer.

Below, we unpack what’s actually in the latest US proposal, how it would change the map and balance of power, and why it’s proving so explosive.

How We Got Here

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered the biggest war in Europe since 1945, followed by sweeping Western sanctions and an unprecedented flow of weapons and financial support to Kyiv. Early attempts at peace talks in 2022 and 2023 collapsed over core disagreements: territory, Ukraine’s NATO ambitions and security guarantees.

By late 2025, war fatigue, budget pressures in Western capitals and Russian gains on parts of the front had created a new dynamic. Reports emerged that Washington was pressing Kyiv more directly to engage with a US-crafted framework, signalling that ongoing support might hinge on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate.

Into this context comes the latest American proposal – a detailed, 28-point plan drafted with heavy White House involvement and, according to multiple outlets, in consultation with both Ukrainian and Russian interlocutors.

The Core of the Plan: A Trade-Off Between Territory and Guarantees

At the heart of the proposal is a stark trade-off: Ukraine would accept lasting territorial losses and strict military constraints in exchange for security guarantees and a massive reconstruction package.

1. Territorial Changes

According to leaked drafts and media summaries, the plan would:

• Recognise Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as de facto Russian
  Western and Ukrainian officials say the proposal accepts Russian control over Crimea and the two eastern “people’s republics,” formalising realities Moscow has tried to claim since 2014 and 2022.

• Freeze front lines in parts of southern Ukraine
  In the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, where front lines remain contested, the plan reportedly locks in current positions, effectively acknowledging additional Russian territorial gains without formal recognition.

• Create a demilitarised buffer zone in Donetsk
  A strip of territory between Ukrainian- and Russian-controlled areas in the Donbas would be demilitarised, with both sides barred from deploying heavy weaponry there. Russian troops would formally be kept out of the buffer, but critics note Moscow’s track record on such commitments is poor.

For many Ukrainians, these provisions are the most painful: they would amount to codifying the loss of significant swathes of internationally recognised Ukrainian territory.

2. NATO and Security Guarantees

The plan’s security architecture tries to square a circle: address Russia’s obsession with NATO while reassuring Ukraine it won’t be left defenseless.

Key elements include:

• A formal bar on Ukraine ever joining NATO
  Kyiv would amend its constitution or sign binding commitments renouncing NATO membership, satisfying one of Moscow’s central demands.

• A non-aggression pact involving Russia, Ukraine and NATO states
  Russia and Ukraine would pledge not to attack each other, while NATO would commit not to deploy combat forces or offensive systems on Ukrainian soil.

• Conditional US-led security guarantees
  If Russia violated the deal and reinvaded, the US and select allies would respond with a “decisive coordinated military response” and reimpose sweeping sanctions. However, the type and scale of military response are left deliberately vague. The guarantees would lapse if Ukraine launched missile attacks on Moscow or St Petersburg or attempted to invade Russia.

Critics argue the guarantees are weaker than NATO’s Article 5, and heavily conditioned on Ukrainian behaviour rather than Russian restraint.

3. Limits on Ukraine’s Military

The proposal also seeks to cap Ukraine’s military capacity:

• Ukraine’s armed forces would be reduced from a potential 800,000+ to around 600,000 troops, according to drafts seen by media.

• Certain long-range missile systems would be banned or tightly restricted, limiting Ukraine’s ability to strike deep into Russian territory.

Supporters argue this could ease Russian security concerns and make a ceasefire more stable; detractors say it would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future coercion.

Money, Sanctions and Russia’s Return to the Global Stage

Beyond guns and borders, the plan tries to use economic incentives to lock both sides into peace.

4. Frozen Russian Assets and Reconstruction

The US proposal envisions mobilising roughly US$200 billion in frozen Russian assets, split between rebuilding Ukraine and joint economic projects that would involve US and Russian entities.

• Around half would go to Ukrainian reconstruction – rebuilding cities, infrastructure and industry devastated by war.

• The remainder would underpin joint US-Russia ventures, a controversial idea given ongoing allegations of war crimes and the political toxicity of rewarding Moscow economically.

European funds and private investors would be asked to contribute additional billions to a Marshall Plan-style recovery program.

5. Sanctions Relief and G8 Reintegration

In exchange for compliance and non-aggression, Russia would:

• See gradual lifting of Western sanctions, tied to benchmarks like troop withdrawal from certain areas, verified ceasefire observance and cooperation on prisoner exchanges.

• Be considered for readmission to the G8, restoring Moscow to the club of major industrialised democracies from which it was expelled after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

For many in Eastern Europe, this looks uncomfortably like a return to “business as usual” with the Kremlin.

Governance, Elections and a “Board of Peace”

The plan also ventures deep into Ukraine’s domestic politics.

• National elections would be held within about 100 days of the agreement taking effect, under international supervision.

• A new oversight body – often described in leaks as a “Board of Peace” or “Peace Council” chaired by the US president – would monitor implementation, mediate disputes and recommend the snapping back of sanctions if either side cheats.

• Provisions for prisoner exchanges, return of deported civilians and children, and cultural and education programs aimed at “promoting tolerance” feature in the back half of the draft.

Ukrainian critics worry that such mechanisms could give Washington – and indirectly Moscow – outsized influence over their internal affairs.

Kyiv’s Dilemma: Dignity, Sovereignty and Dependence

Officially, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office has confirmed receiving the proposal and signalled readiness to “work constructively” with the US and European partners. But it has notably stopped short of endorsing the plan, and Zelenskyy has spoken openly about the risk of losing either Ukraine’s dignity or a key partner.

Ukrainian officials and commentators have raised several core objections:

• Territorial concessions are seen as crossing a red line, effectively rewarding an invader and betraying those who died defending the land.

• A permanent ban on NATO membership is viewed as undermining Ukraine’s long-term security and democratic choice.

• Military caps and limits on long-range weapons could make it impossible to deter a future Russian build-up.

At the same time, the Ukrainian leadership knows its battlefield resilience depends heavily on continued American and European weapons and financial flows. Reuters and others report that Washington has privately warned of cuts to intelligence sharing and arms deliveries if Kyiv categorically rejects the framework.

This leaves Kyiv in an excruciating bind: accept painful compromises now, or risk fighting on with diminishing external support.

Moscow’s View: Public Denials, Quiet Interest

Publicly, Russian officials have oscillated between claiming ignorance of any formal proposal and signalling cautious interest. A foreign ministry spokesperson recently said Moscow had not received a US draft “of such a level,” while Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov insisted there were “no innovations” to announce.

Yet reporting from multiple outlets suggests:

• Russian interlocutors were involved in shaping parts of the 28-point plan, particularly territorial and NATO-related provisions.

• President Vladimir Putin has indicated the US plan could form the basis for a final settlement, largely because it enshrines many of Moscow’s longstanding demands: recognition of annexed territory, Ukrainian neutrality and sanctions relief.

For the Kremlin, the proposal offers a potential victory narrative at home: the war secured land, blocked NATO expansion and compelled the West to negotiate on Russia’s terms.

Western Allies: “A Basis for Talks” – But With Major Reservations

At the G20 summit in Johannesburg, European leaders described the US initiative as a “basis for talks” but stressed it would require “additional work” to be acceptable.

Key allied concerns include:

• Precedent: If Russia keeps territory seized by force, what message does that send to other would-be aggressors?

• NATO cohesion: A US-driven deal that sidelines European capitals could fracture alliance unity and fuel resentment.

• Ukrainian agency: Several leaders insist any agreement must be acceptable to Kyiv and not imposed over its objections.

Behind closed doors, diplomats are reportedly scrambling to tweak the plan to improve terms for Ukraine before a US-imposed deadline for Zelenskyy to respond.

US Domestic Backlash

Even within the United States, the proposal has sparked intense debate.

• At an international security conference in Canada, American senators from both parties lambasted the plan, with one calling it among the most serious geopolitical mistakes of his lifetime.

• Human rights advocates and some former diplomats argue it amounts to appeasement, drawing historical parallels to deals in the 1930s that sacrificed smaller countries for short-term peace.

• Others, including some voices in Washington policy circles, counter that the US must balance its support for Ukraine with broader strategic priorities and domestic constraints – and that any peace will inevitably involve compromises.

The result is a fractured American conversation, with no clear consensus on how far the US should go to secure a deal, or at what cost.

Big Questions Hanging Over the Proposal

As Kyiv, Moscow and Western capitals pore over the 28 points, several unresolved questions loom large:

1. Can any guarantees really deter a future Russian attack?
   Without NATO-style automatic defence commitments, it’s unclear whether Russia would truly be constrained – especially once sanctions are lifted and its economy stabilises.

2. Will Ukrainians accept territorial loss?
   Polling over the last two years has consistently shown large majorities in Ukraine opposing territorial concessions. Any government signing such a deal risks a fierce domestic backlash and political instability.

3. Who enforces the deal if either side cheats?
   A US-chaired Peace Council could coordinate responses, but enforcement ultimately comes down to political will – the very factor that’s often in short supply when crises emerge elsewhere.

4. What precedent does this set for international law?
   Enshrining gains from a war widely condemned as illegal would strain the global norm against aggressive conquest, a concern voiced by many smaller states watching from the sidelines.

What Happens Next?

In the coming days and weeks:

• President Zelenskyy is expected to hold intensive consultations with his military, political allies and European leaders before formally responding. Reports suggest Washington has set a deadline around late November for Kyiv to indicate whether it will work within the US framework.

• Further talks are anticipated in neutral venues such as Turkey, where Ukrainian and US officials are already scheduled to meet, potentially with quiet Russian participation via intermediaries.

• European capitals will push for modifications they hope can make the plan more acceptable to Ukraine while still satisfying Washington and keeping some door open to Moscow.

No one expects a simple yes or no. More likely is a drawn-out process of bargaining over wording, timelines and sequencing – from when sanctions are lifted to how elections are arranged, and what precisely constitutes a violation.

A Peace Plan or Just Another Turning Point?

The latest US proposal is the most detailed and consequential attempt yet to end the Russia-Ukraine war. It offers the prospect of silence on the front lines, a path to rebuilding shattered cities and a way for Washington and its allies to pivot attention to other global challenges.

But it also asks Ukraine to swallow losses that cut to the heart of its sovereignty and identity, while trusting in guarantees that many analysts view as ambiguous and fragile. For Russia, it offers validation and rewards that critics say could embolden similar gambits elsewhere.

Whether this becomes the foundation for a real settlement – or just another controversial document in a war already littered with failed initiatives – will depend on decisions made in the coming weeks in Kyiv, Moscow and Washington. For millions of Ukrainians living under shellfire or occupation, those choices could define not just the shape of their state, but the course of their lives.