Scoop: U.S. Secretly Drafting New Plan to End Ukraine War – An Analysis of Critical Unresolved Contention Points and Geopolitical Fallout (November 19, 2025)

The diplomatic landscape surrounding the conflict in Ukraine has been dramatically altered by reports emerging in mid-November 2025, specifically an Axios scoop detailing a secret, 28-point peace plan being drafted by the U.S. administration in consultation with Russian officials. This initiative, reportedly inspired by the recent success of a deal brokered in Gaza, signals a potentially significant pivot in Washington’s strategy to conclude the protracted hostilities. The plan’s four general buckets—peace in Ukraine, security guarantees, security in Europe, and future U.S.-Russia-Ukraine relations—suggest a comprehensive framework, yet the early reactions and the inherent ambiguities surrounding its core components point toward an exceptionally high-stakes negotiation ahead. As of November 19, 2025, the focus shifts from the document’s very existence to a critical analysis of the unresolved points that will determine whether this framework leads to lasting peace or merely a constrained, potentially unstable cessation of fighting.

Analysis of Critical Unresolved Contention Points

The reported 28-point structure, while signaling an intent for finality, leaves several fundamental questions unanswered. These vacuums are not mere gaps in detail; they represent the deepest trenches of contention that have previously derailed all serious negotiation attempts. The success or failure of this covert diplomatic track hinges entirely on the creative resolution of these three critical areas.

The Enigma of Territorial Delineation

Perhaps the most significant vacuum in the publicly available details pertains to the proposal’s handling of the occupied and contested territories in Eastern Ukraine. The crucial question that hangs over the entire twenty-eight-point structure is how it addresses the fundamental, non-negotiable demands from Moscow regarding territorial control versus Kyiv’s unwavering commitment to its internationally recognized borders. The initial reports are notably silent on whether the plan mandates a withdrawal to pre-invasion lines, accepts a freezing of the current frontlines, or proposes any other mechanism for resolving the status of regions currently under dispute. The ambiguity on this point is, itself, a political statement, perhaps signaling that a creative, non-binary solution is being sought, or conversely, that the most difficult compromises are being intentionally obscured until later stages.

It is essential to remember the context: Russia has historically issued maximalist demands, including the cession of territory Kyiv controls, while Ukraine maintains a firm, internationally backed stance on its 1991 borders. Sources indicate that the plan remains unclear on how it approaches the issue of territorial control in Eastern Ukraine, an area where Russian forces have made incremental advances but still control significantly less land than the Kremlin has demanded. A freeze along the current lines, which Russia has previously rejected in similar peace initiatives, would be perceived by Moscow as a gain achieved by force, while any proposal falling short of this would be politically toxic in Kyiv. The nature of the territorial compromise—or the deferral of its resolution—will be the ultimate litmus test for the entire framework.

The Question of Future Military Posture and Alliances

Another area of inherent tension lies in the security guarantees pillar and its necessary interplay with Ukraine’s sovereign aspirations, particularly regarding NATO accession. Any framework that severely limits Ukraine’s right to self-determination in its security alignment, even in exchange for peace and security assurances, would be viewed by many in Kyiv and its firmest supporters as a capitulation. Conversely, any commitment to Ukraine’s full integration into Western security structures remains a primary antagonist to Moscow’s stated security imperatives. The precise wording regarding future military capabilities, foreign military basing rights, and alliance membership within the twenty-eight points will be the ultimate test of whether the plan offers true peace or merely a heavily constrained, frozen conflict structure.

The reporting suggests the plan encompasses “security guarantees” and “security in Europe,” implying a structure that seeks to address Russian security concerns without necessarily granting Kyiv the full NATO membership it seeks. Given that Ukraine has recently secured significant military support, including an accord with France for up to 100 combat aircraft, as of November 18, 2025, Kyiv enters these discussions from a position of maintained military capability. The balance struck here—guarantees from the U.S. and others versus full integration into NATO—will dictate the long-term viability of the peace and the future shape of the European security architecture.

Sanctions Relief and Economic Normalization Timeline

For the Russian Federation, the easing of crippling economic sanctions is a central negotiating objective, and thus, the plan must contain specific, phased metrics for their removal. The nature and timing of sanctions relief, tied directly to compliance milestones such as troop movements or political agreements, will be a major focus for Washington’s treasury and state departments. Any linkage that appears too generous or too meager, from either perspective, risks collapsing the entire structure. The economic chapter of the proposal is, therefore, not an addendum but a core mechanism for enforcement, providing tangible, non-military incentives for adherence to the agreement.

The connection between sanctions relief and compliance will be intensely scrutinized by Congress and the international financial community. The framework’s success, as seen through the Kremlin’s optimistic lens—suggesting that “the Russian position is really being heard”—may indicate a willingness within the U.S. draft to offer concrete economic incentives early in the process. This creates a tightrope walk for the U.S. negotiators: providing enough economic incentive to secure Russian compliance without undermining the long-term strategic pressure on Moscow.

Geopolitical Ripples and Reactions from Key Stakeholders

The mere emergence of this covert framework has sent ripples through allied capitals and the conflicting parties. The rollout strategy, which reportedly involves discreet briefings, is fraught with potential pitfalls concerning allied consultation and Ukrainian sovereignty.

Managing European Ally Apprehension

The White House’s reported move to discreetly brief key European partners is a necessary, though fraught, element of the rollout strategy. Many European capitals view the conflict through a lens deeply intertwined with their own national security architecture and the future of the European Union’s collective defense posture. The primary apprehension will stem from the perception that a deal crafted primarily between Washington and Moscow risks sidelining European interests or, worse, solidifying territorial gains for the aggressor outside of a broader European security context.

The manner in which these allies are being brought on board—and the extent to which they can influence the final details—will determine whether this plan unites the West or inadvertently sows division at a critical juncture. European nations, having borne significant costs related to energy security and supporting Kyiv, will demand assurances that any peace respects the principles of international law and does not set a precedent for accepting forceful border revisions. The narrative that this is a U.S.-led diplomatic effort, inspired by a separate regional agreement, may struggle to gain traction among allies accustomed to a more multilateral approach to European security.

The Stance of the Ukrainian Government in Kyiv

The Ukrainian leadership faces the most immediate and existential challenge in evaluating this covert proposal. While the desire to halt the relentless destruction and loss of life is undeniable, the political mandate is rooted in defending the nation’s territorial integrity and sovereign choices. Any framework that suggests trading land for peace will face immense domestic pressure and potential political instability.

The challenge for Kyiv is to leverage its current position, perhaps enhanced by battlefield successes preceding the report, to extract the maximum possible value from the plan without appearing to be coerced by external powers into making unacceptable sacrifices. President Zelenskyy’s reported intention, as he travels to Turkey seeking to “reinvigorate negotiations,” is to present his own “concrete proposals that will lead to a ceasefire,” suggesting Kyiv is not passively awaiting an externally imposed solution. The official response will be the definitive pivot point for the entire diplomatic initiative. Furthermore, the fact that U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s planned meeting with President Zelenskyy on November 19 was postponed, following earlier discussions with National Security Secretary Rustem Umerov in Miami, highlights the delicate, potentially strained communication lines that must now be repaired or leveraged to secure essential buy-in.

The Optimism Displayed by Russian Officials

The reported optimism emanating from certain high-ranking Russian sources regarding the plan is telling, suggesting that the framework, in its current conceptual stage, aligns favorably with Moscow’s primary strategic objectives or at least offers a realistic path to securing significant, long-term gains. This positive reception implies that the core principles discussed, potentially involving the recognition of certain territorial alterations or security guarantees that limit Ukraine’s future alignment, have been sufficiently accommodated in the drafting phase. This optimistic posture puts immediate pressure on the West and Ukraine to respond to what the Kremlin might perceive as a generous offer being presented.

Russian Envoy Kirill Dmitriev’s assertion that “we feel the Russian position is really being heard” is a direct indication that the drafting process incorporated key Russian red lines, likely concerning the non-aligned status of Ukraine and the current lines of contact. This successful consultation with Moscow provides the framework with an element of internal Russian support that previous U.S. proposals lacked, though it simultaneously raises the bar for what Kyiv and its Western partners will deem acceptable.

Broader Implications for International Governance

Beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities, the nature of this U.S.-Russia backchannel diplomacy carries significant weight for the future conduct of international relations and the established global order.

Challenges to Established Post-Conflict Paradigms

The very existence of a U.S.-Russia framework, developed largely outside the established multilateral mechanisms designed for conflict resolution, signals a potential shift in how future global disputes are managed. If successful, this model could be seen as validating the efficacy of direct, top-down negotiation between great powers, potentially diminishing the perceived value of international bodies and consensus-driven diplomacy. The precedent set by this resolution—whether it is lauded as a pragmatic end to bloodshed or condemned as a concession to aggression—will profoundly influence conflict management strategies worldwide.

This development contrasts sharply with past efforts that leaned heavily on established international platforms. A successful resolution via this specific bilateral track, irrespective of the outcome in Ukraine, could empower similar great-power diplomatic backchannels in future crises, sidelining the United Nations Security Council and other forums meant to ensure broad international legitimacy and oversight.

Shifts in the Transatlantic Security Architecture

This entire diplomatic exercise forces a re-evaluation of the existing security architecture underpinning Europe. If the eventual agreement includes formalized security guarantees for Ukraine that do not fully involve NATO membership, it necessitates a serious conversation about the future utility and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself. It compels member states to consider what level of commitment they are truly prepared to offer outside of Article Five scenarios and how U.S. guarantees will be structured in a new post-war security settlement, especially if that settlement was brokered in a manner perceived as sidelining Brussels and the EU.

The recent moves by European allies, such as Ukraine signing an accord with France for advanced military hardware, underscore a concerted effort by Kyiv to deepen security ties independent of a potential U.S. pivot. Any U.S.-brokered deal that formalizes a lesser security status for Ukraine outside of full NATO integration will require immediate, fundamental recalculations regarding European defense spending, burden-sharing, and strategic autonomy within the transatlantic alliance.

The Long Arc of U.S.-Russia Diplomatic Normalization

Beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities, the fourth pillar explicitly addresses the future trajectory of U.S.-Russia relations, aiming for a broader systemic re-alignment. This suggests the current effort is not merely a tactical truce but an attempt to establish a new, albeit possibly adversarial, baseline relationship between the two nuclear powers. Such a normalization, conditional on the Ukraine settlement, would reshape geopolitical alliances, trade relations, and strategic arms control negotiations across the globe.

The context of this initiative, reportedly stemming from principles agreed upon by President Trump and President Putin in Alaska in August 2025, points to a strategic re-engagement aimed at de-escalation between the major powers. Dmitriev’s statement that the framework is designed to address “how to restore U.S.-Russia ties” confirms this broader strategic ambition. This endeavor represents a high-stakes attempt to manage the deep structural antagonism that has defined the post-Cold War era, contingent on the successful resolution of the most dangerous active conflict in Europe.

Anticipated Future Course and Next Diplomatic Steps

The immediate future will be characterized by rapid, intense diplomatic maneuvering as the draft transitions from a secret concept to a public negotiating document. The next moves will be highly sensitive, involving a delicate balance of pressure and persuasion directed at Kyiv and its partners.

The Imminent Road to Formal Presentation

The next crucial phase involves the formal transition from a secret draft to a publicly acknowledged negotiation track. This requires the drafters to decide on the sequence and timing of presenting the full twenty-eight points to Kyiv and the broader European coalition. A key decision will be whether to present the plan as a non-negotiable final offer or as a flexible starting document open to adaptation based on feedback from all parties involved. The success of this transition will depend heavily on managing the narrative surrounding the plan’s genesis and its ultimate goals.

A U.S. official confirmed the White House had begun briefing European officials, alongside the Ukrainians, on the plan, stating the intent is to adapt it based on input. This suggests a degree of flexibility, though the framework’s foundational points—developed in Washington and Moscow—will likely remain rigid. The goal is reportedly to produce a written document before any potential future meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin.

The Criticality of Ukrainian Endorsement

The ultimate viability of any peace plan for the Ukraine conflict rests entirely on the endorsement, or at least the reluctant acceptance, of the Ukrainian government. Future steps will involve intense, high-stakes diplomatic engagement in Kyiv to secure that buy-in. This process will likely involve detailed clarifications on the territorial status, security assurances, and rebuilding packages promised within the framework. If Kyiv rejects the core tenets, particularly those concerning sovereignty, the entire covert negotiation process risks dissolving, potentially leading to an even more entrenched military situation.

The Ukrainian leadership’s immediate actions, including President Zelenskyy’s focus on reviving talks and presenting his *own* solutions, demonstrate an active attempt to shape the narrative and control the terms of engagement, rather than simply reacting to a U.S.-Russia dictated outcome. The coming days, especially concerning any high-level engagement in Turkey, will reveal the extent of Ukrainian alignment with the U.S. proposal versus its own objectives.

Forecasting the International Political Fallout

Regardless of the outcome, the revelation of this secret initiative guarantees a period of significant political turbulence. Anticipate immediate and strong reactions from political factions globally—those who support a swift negotiated end to the conflict, and those who maintain that only a complete restoration of the pre-invasion status quo is acceptable.

The global financial markets, energy sectors, and defense industries will be keenly observing every development, as this plan promises to redraw the map of geopolitical risk and economic opportunity across the Eurasian landmass. The next few weeks will be characterized by intense political maneuvering as the world adjusts to the reality of this potentially paradigm-shifting diplomatic roadmap, with the core question remaining whether the pragmatism of a negotiated end can overcome the profound, deeply held principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.