Listen to the article
President Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine war, obtained by The Associated Press, reveals a proposal that would significantly favor Russia by ceding territory and imposing limits on Ukraine’s military capabilities.
The draft agreement, developed through negotiations between Washington and Moscow, would allow Russia to retain control of the entire eastern Donbas region, including approximately 14% that remains under Ukrainian control. Ukraine’s military would face a substantial reduction from its current force of about 880,000 troops to 600,000.
The proposal also includes provisions that align with long-standing Russian demands, including a prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO and preventing future NATO expansion. This represents a major concession to Moscow, which has consistently viewed NATO as a security threat.
Under the plan, Russia would commit to making no future attacks against Ukraine, a provision the White House views as a significant concession. Additionally, $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be dedicated to rebuilding Ukraine, providing some financial relief for the war-torn country.
The draft also outlines steps toward normalizing Russia’s position in the international community. Sanctions on Russia could be lifted, and Moscow could potentially return to what was formerly known as the Group of Eight, a forum of major economies from which Russia was suspended in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea.
Security guarantees for Ukraine are addressed in a side agreement, which states that a future “significant, deliberate and sustained armed attack” by Russia would be viewed as “threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community.” However, this agreement does not obligate the United States or European allies to intervene militarily on Ukraine’s behalf, merely stating they would “determine the measures necessary to restore security.”
The proposal establishes a “Peace Council” overseen by President Trump to monitor compliance with the agreement. If either Ukraine or Russia violates the truce, they would face sanctions.
U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have reportedly been working quietly on the peace plan for approximately a month, consulting with both Ukrainian and Russian officials. Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, a close adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been key figures in drafting the proposal.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has maintained a measured public stance on the proposal. “Our teams — of Ukraine and the United States — will work on the provisions of the plan to end the war. We are ready for constructive, honest and swift work,” Zelenskyy wrote on social media after discussions with U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in Kyiv.
However, the territorial concessions in the proposal would likely face significant resistance in Ukraine. Zelenskyy has repeatedly rejected the possibility of ceding land to Russia, and such concessions would violate Ukraine’s constitution. Ukraine’s deputy U.N. Ambassador Khrystyna Hayovyshyn emphasized that “there will never be any recognition, formal or otherwise, of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as Russian.”
European leaders have expressed concern about being sidelined in the negotiations. European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stressed that “for any plan to work, it needs Ukrainians and Europeans on board,” adding that she had not heard of any concessions from the Russian side.
The proposal has also faced domestic criticism in the U.S. Representative Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska and Air Force veteran, rejected the plan as “unacceptable,” comparing it to the 1938 Munich Agreement that failed to prevent World War II.
Trump’s approach to ending the war represents a significant shift from current policy and could strain relations with European allies who have supported Ukraine throughout the conflict. While Trump has expressed disappointment that negotiations have taken longer than expected, this proposal represents the most concrete step yet in his administration’s efforts to broker an end to a war that has continued for nearly four years.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
While the goal of ending the conflict is understandable, this proposed peace plan seems to reward Russia’s aggression at the expense of Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity. It’s a concerning development that warrants further scrutiny.
Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is a longstanding Russian demand, so it’s not surprising to see that in the proposal. However, this appears to be a significant compromise that would limit Ukraine’s ability to align with Western institutions.
The idea of frozen Russian assets being used to rebuild Ukraine is an interesting proposal, but the overall balance of this plan seems heavily tilted in Russia’s favor. Ukraine would be forced to make major concessions.
Yes, the financial component is a positive, but it doesn’t outweigh the territorial and military restrictions placed on Ukraine. This appears to be an unfair deal that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty.
While the financial support for rebuilding Ukraine is welcome, the broader terms of this plan seem to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and ability to defend itself. This is a worrying development that could have long-term implications.
You’re right, the financial aid is positive, but the territorial and military concessions are very problematic. This plan seems to prioritize appeasing Russia over Ukraine’s security interests.
This proposed peace plan raises a lot of concerns. While the financial support is welcome, the territorial and military concessions to Russia are deeply troubling and seem to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. A more balanced settlement is needed.
The draft agreement’s provisions around NATO expansion and Ukraine’s military capabilities are particularly troubling. They appear to prioritize Russia’s strategic interests over Ukraine’s right to self-determination and collective defense.
I agree, those aspects of the plan are highly problematic. Ukraine should have a stronger voice in determining its own security arrangements and not be forced to make such significant concessions to Russia.
This proposed peace plan seems to heavily favor Russia’s interests over Ukraine’s. Ceding territory and limiting Ukraine’s military capabilities is a concerning concession to Moscow, even if it means stabilizing the region in the short term.
I agree, this plan appears to be heavily skewed towards Russian demands rather than a balanced settlement. Ukraine should have more leverage in these negotiations.