The Shadow Negotiation: Deconstructing the Reported 28-Point US-Russian Plan for Ukraine
The diplomatic landscape surrounding the nearly four-year conflict in Ukraine shifted dramatically in mid-November 2025 with the emergence of reports detailing a secretive 28-point peace plan, allegedly drafted by high-level United States and Russian officials. Leaked to Western media outlets including Axios, the Financial Times, and The New York Times, the framework immediately ignited controversy by proposing significant, non-negotiable concessions from Kyiv in exchange for a promised, yet vaguely defined, security architecture. As the world processed the framework’s tenets, the reality on the ground—marked by escalating Russian attrition bombing—served as a visceral counterpoint to the diplomatic maneuvering, further complicating the already fraught path toward any just and durable cessation of hostilities.
The Proposed Security Architecture in Exchange for Concessions
The essence of the reported 28-point agreement appeared to pivot on a stark transactional premise: Ukraine would voluntarily cede substantial territory and severely curtail its defense capabilities now to secure a shield against future, unilateral Russian aggression. This framework, which reportedly required Kyiv to make profound reversals of its stated war aims, was structured around four general categories: peace in Ukraine, security guarantees, security in Europe, and the future trajectory of U.S.-Russia relations.
Vague Promises of Future Protection for Kyiv
The crucial element intended to assuage Ukrainian and European fears regarding future Russian behavior was the prospect of formal security guarantees. The draft proposal purportedly held out the vision of the United States, alongside unnamed allied nations—presumably key members of the European bloc—offering a robust, multilateral security commitment to Kyiv. This was positioned as the essential quid pro quo: territorial and military surrender now for a diplomatic shield later. However, the primary strategic weakness, and the focal point of immediate international skepticism, was the striking absence of concrete detail surrounding this protective element. The structure, enforcement mechanisms, and specific parameters of this supposed shield remained frustratingly nebulous, casting doubt on its intended efficacy.
Historical Precedent and the Efficacy of New Guarantees
The international community, particularly nations acutely aware of the fragility of signed accords with the Russian Federation, viewed these promised guarantees with profound apprehension. The most salient historical precedent cited as a cautionary tale was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under that agreement, Ukraine surrendered its vast nuclear arsenal in exchange for explicit security assurances from the U.S., the U.K., and Russia—assurances that were demonstrably rendered worthless by the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 full-scale invasion. The crucial, unanswered question remained: how could a new guarantee, negotiated in the context of a settlement that already recognized Russian territorial gains, be effectively structured and enforced to prevent an almost certain repetition of historical aggression? This lack of concrete, binding, and verifiable enforcement mechanisms severely undermined the perceived value of the entire security component of the 28-point proposal.
The concessions demanded of Kyiv were draconian and represented a near-complete capitulation on several core Ukrainian objectives. According to reports, these included:
- Ceding the remainder of the Russian-occupied eastern Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), including territory currently under Kyiv’s control.
- Reducing the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces by half.
- Reducing or altogether abandoning certain categories of weaponry, specifically long-range missiles capable of striking targets deep inside Russia.
- Accepting a rollback or limitation of future U.S. military assistance.
- Banning any future deployment of Western troops on Ukrainian soil.
- Demands touching upon domestic policy, such as recognizing Russian as an official state language and granting formal status to the Russian Orthodox Church.
These terms, viewed through the lens of Ukrainian sovereignty, were characterized by many as forcing a humiliating U-turn upon President Zelenskyy’s administration, which had long maintained that relinquishing sovereign territory was an absolute non-starter.
The Genesis and Methodology of the Drafting Process
The reporting surrounding the twenty-eight points also illuminated the opaque and exclusionary process by which the document was constructed, further fueling concerns over its legitimacy and intrinsic bias. The framework appeared less like a synthesis of mutually acceptable terms and more like an imposed settlement drafted largely outside the direct purview of the principal belligerent.
Involvement of Non-Ukrainian Mediators and Representatives
The document was clearly the result of intense, quiet back-channel diplomacy. The primary architects were reportedly U.S. representatives, specifically Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, and the Kremlin’s informal envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund. Dmitriev confirmed meeting extensively with Witkoff, stating that this time, “the Russian position is really being heard,” suggesting a favorable tilt in the drafting process. The plan was reportedly conveyed to Ukrainian officials, including National Security and Defence Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, during meetings in Miami.
Critically, official representation from the Ukrainian government and the European Union was conspicuously absent from the core negotiation sessions where the document took shape. While regional players like Qatar and Türkiye were reportedly involved in supporting U.S. mediation efforts [prompt context], the lack of Kyiv’s direct involvement in formulating the concessions it would have to accept led to the immediate perception that the plan was an imposed settlement rather than a collaboratively negotiated peace treaty.
Echoes of Previous Russian Ultimatums
Perhaps the most damning contextual element noted by observers was the striking resemblance between Washington’s proposed framework and an earlier, maximalist ultimatum delivered by Moscow during negotiations in Istanbul in the preceding months of the year [prompt context]. Sources familiar with the draft described it as a “very generic document” that was “heavily tilted towards Russia” and “very comfortable for Putin”. This similarity suggested that the American-backed proposal was not a fresh synthesis of compromises but rather a strategic repackaging of entrenched Russian demands, presented to Kyiv within a more palatable diplomatic wrapper by its principal Western partner. This dynamic implied that the U.S. administration, eager to “show progress” on ending the conflict, was effectively leveraging its influence to push Moscow’s most extreme stated objectives onto the Ukrainian negotiating table.
The Immediate Repercussions Across the Conflict Zone
The public revelation of the supposed peace plan on Thursday, November 20, 2025, occurred simultaneously with some of the most intense and destructive military actions of the conflict in the preceding 24 to 48 hours, sharply highlighting the brutal disparity between the diplomatic narrative and the grim reality on the ground.
Contrast Between Diplomatic Talk and Intensified Battlefield Attrition
The reporting of the twenty-eight points coincided directly with news of a massive, coordinated Russian barrage utilizing a vast number of drones and cruise missiles against critical targets across Ukraine. This was not a reduction in hostilities leading to a diplomatic breakthrough but a significant escalation of violence, often aimed at civilian infrastructure, occurring just as the back-channel framework was being leaked. The timing suggested either a calculated Russian strategy to enhance its bargaining position through coercive terror bombing or a profound disconnect between the diplomatic track being managed in Washington and the military command structure operating in Moscow.
Scale of Recent Civilian Impact and Infrastructure Damage
The scale of the preceding night’s attacks was immediately quantifiable in human and structural cost. Reports confirmed the deaths of at least 26 people and the injury of many more in a Russian strike on the western city of Ternopil, with rescue workers subsequently combing through the rubble of multi-storey residential buildings. The broader barrage also targeted critical energy networks in regions such as Ivano-Frankivsk and Lviv. This widespread destruction forced nationwide emergency power rationing, serving as a visceral counter-argument to any narrative suggesting the war was nearing a peaceful conclusion and instead emphasizing the immediate, human cost of the ongoing aggression even as high-level talks supposedly matured in secret.
International Reception and Future Trajectory of the Proposal
The unveiling of the twenty-eight points provoked immediate and intense reactions across the global political spectrum, ranging from outrage among Ukraine’s staunchest supporters to pragmatic concern over the future stability and norms of international order in Europe.
Concerns Voiced by European and Allied Capitals
In many European capitals, particularly those bordering the conflict zone, the news was met with alarm. The potential for a U.S.-brokered settlement that effectively forced concessions upon a sovereign Ukrainian leadership was viewed as a profound betrayal of democratic principles and a dangerous validation of coercion as an effective tool of statecraft. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas articulated this stance, welcoming efforts for peace but stressing that for any plan to succeed, it required “Ukrainians and Europeans on board”. Kallas pointedly noted the imbalance of the reported negotiation, stating: “Also, we have to understand that in this war, there is one aggressor and one victim. So we haven’t heard of any concessions on the Russian side”. She cited the night’s attacks—where 93% of Russian targets were civilian infrastructure—as evidence that Russia’s actions contradicted any genuine desire for peace. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot similarly insisted that a just peace could not equate to “capitulation” for Kyiv. The implication that such a deal could be imposed without the EU’s full assent generated deep anxiety regarding the continent’s future security architecture.
The Unyielding Stance of Ukrainian Leadership Post-Disclosure
Despite the significant external pressure exerted by the reported diplomatic initiative, the official response emanating from Kyiv, as conveyed through its high-level security apparatus, indicated an outright rejection of the plan in its current configuration. Ukrainian sources familiar with the document consistently characterized its terms as an unacceptable “non-starter,” recognizing it as a near-mirror image of the maximalist demands Moscow had long put forth.
While Ukrainian officials acknowledged engagement with the U.S. envoy, particularly the prior meeting between Envoy Witkoff and National Security Secretary Umerov in Miami, the message relayed was unequivocal: any durable peace must fundamentally honor national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the undeniable will of the Ukrainian people. Reports indicated that President Zelenskyy, instead of accepting the terms, arrived in Ankara with an alternative proposal developed in coordination with European partners, described by one U.S. official as a framework Russia “will never accept”. A planned meeting between Zelenskyy and Witkoff in Ankara was subsequently postponed, signaling a refusal to immediately validate the U.S.-drafted proposal. The initial twenty-eight points, therefore, served not as a conclusion to the conflict, but rather as the catalyst for a new, intense phase of political and diplomatic struggle over the very definition of what a cessation of hostilities in 2025 must ultimately entail.