As President trump nears the one-year mark of his second term, his governance is reportedly pushing a controversial plan to resolve the ongoing war in Ukraine. the proposal, which centers on a series of meaningful concessions from Kyiv – including potential territorial losses and limitations on its military – has sparked intense debate among allies and raised questions about the future of European security. Utilizing back-channel negotiations with Moscow facilitated by outside intermediaries, the administration is signaling a willingness to prioritize a swift resolution, even if it means challenging established diplomatic norms and potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape.
Former President Donald Trump, even during his campaign, repeatedly promised a swift end to the war in Ukraine: “I will end that war in 24 hours.” Since entering office in early 2025, that rhetoric has shifted, evolving into a political goal of resolving the conflict within 100 days, and then to simply making “progress” rather than achieving an immediate solution. By March 2025, Trump acknowledged he was “sort of kidding” when he initially proposed the 24-hour timeframe, stating the reality of the situation is far more complex.
Despite the modified timeline, the core idea remains: a quick, large-scale deal with both Moscow and Kyiv, imposed by Washington under the banner of “stopping the bloodshed,” “focusing on China,” and “relieving the burden of aid on American taxpayers.”
To facilitate these potential negotiations, Trump has reportedly tapped businessmen and close associates like Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as unconventional channels to the Kremlin. This approach bypasses the traditional bureaucracy of the State Department and Pentagon, aligning with Trump’s preference for “deal-making diplomacy” over relying on established experts. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine continues to have global ramifications, impacting energy markets, international alliances, and the broader geopolitical landscape.
Trading Security Gains for a Ceasefire
Table of Contents
A draft plan, reportedly consisting of 28 points, has emerged as particularly controversial. On the security front, the plan proposes a comprehensive ceasefire followed by a non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. This would be accompanied by a trilateral U.S.-Russia-Europe dialogue aimed at resolving longstanding ambiguities in European security architecture – effectively recognizing Russia as a key partner in any future security arrangements.
Regionally, the plan’s core appears to favor cementing Russia’s territorial gains. Ukraine would reportedly cede the entirety of the Donbas region (eastern Ukraine) to Moscow, including areas currently under Kyiv’s control, and Russia’s previous annexations, such as Crimea, would be formalized.
In exchange, Ukraine’s “sovereignty” over the remaining territory would be verbally reaffirmed, without a full return to its 1991 borders. The plan also stipulates that Ukraine would constitutionally renounce its aspirations to join NATO, with the alliance committing to no further eastward expansion or deployment of forces within Ukraine. Instead, deterrents would be shifted to countries like Poland, where Western fighter jets would be redeployed.
Militarily, the plan envisions a cap on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces – around 600,000 soldiers, compared to nearly 900,000 currently – weakening Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and reassuring Moscow that Kyiv would not pose a future threat.
Conversely, the plan offers Ukraine a package of potential benefits:
- An accelerated path toward European Union membership.
- Funding for reconstruction through contributions from European, American, and potentially broader international sources.
- A conditional “security guarantee” from the United States: the U.S., along with several other nations, would pledge to respond if Ukraine were subjected to renewed aggression, with complex technical details outlining the form and mechanisms of that response.
Furthermore, the plan aims to reintegrate Russia into the global economy, including a gradual lifting of sanctions and potentially readmitting Moscow to an expanded G8. From the Kremlin’s perspective, this would represent an opportunity to emerge from international isolation.
A Pragmatic Peace in the Face of Attrition
Supporters of Trump’s approach frame the plan as a form of hard-nosed realism. They argue the war has entered its fourth year, with escalating human and economic costs, and the West is fatigued by prolonged military and financial support. Russia, they contend, has demonstrated a willingness to bear significant costs to continue the conflict.
Given these circumstances, a return to 1991 borders is seen as nearly impossible without a dangerous escalation that could trigger a wider confrontation between NATO and Russia. Therefore, a pragmatic solution involves stabilizing current control lines, with territorial concessions from Ukraine, in exchange for a ceasefire and security guarantees. This development highlights the growing divergence in perspectives on how to resolve the conflict.
From this viewpoint, the goal isn’t to achieve complete justice, but to halt the bleeding – to end the Russia-Ukraine war, avert a potential nuclear conflict, and allow Europe, which is in a precarious position, to rebuild its strength and defense systems. Crucially, it would also allow the United States to refocus its strategic competition with China, rather than depleting its resources in a protracted war in Eastern Europe.
This logic views the war through the lens of global geopolitical balance, not solely through the prism of international law and the rights of nations. Proponents acknowledge the plan heavily favors Russian demands, but consider it a necessary price for ending a war they see as having no clear path to a decisive victory.
Ukrainian and European Criticism: Peace or Appeasement?
The Ukrainian and European sides reportedly received the plan with shock. Ukraine, having fought a fierce war since 2022, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, and experiencing widespread destruction of its infrastructure, views accepting significant territorial concessions and relinquishing its right to choose its own defensive alliances as an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Russia’s war.
The American plan, in its initial form, placed Ukraine, according to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at one of the most difficult moments in its history, as it’s not merely a military agreement but one that defines the nation’s future for decades: its borders, army, alliances, and relationship with international law.
The plan also sparked sharp criticism in Europe, particularly in Paris and Berlin, with reports indicating that French President Emmanuel Macron warned Zelenskyy in a private conversation that Washington might pressure Ukraine to make substantial territorial concessions without firm security guarantees, and that Europe would not accept an “imposed peace” reminiscent of the Munich Agreement of 1938 – the appeasement of an expansionist power at the expense of a smaller nation. However, the winds in the Ukrainian crisis are not blowing in Europe’s favor.
Some Europeans saw the plan as a U.S.-Russia agreement over the heads of both Ukrainians and Europeans, with the initial draft reportedly formulated between Washington and Moscow through the Witkoff-Dmitriev channel, then presented to Kyiv as a fait accompli, without serious prior consultation with key European Union allies.
This prompted Britain, France, and Germany to formulate a counter-proposal reviewing the 28 points and emphasizing compensation, the use of frozen Russian assets, and reaffirming the principle that changing borders by force is illegal.
Additionally, other aspects of the plan drew deep human rights criticism, with a group of over 130 British lawmakers condemning the lack of clear reference to the rights of Ukrainian children deported to Russia, and objecting to the blanket amnesty that could drop international arrest warrants for Russian officials accused of war crimes, including President Putin and Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova. From their perspective, such an amnesty undermines international humanitarian law and legitimizes enforced disappearance and forced displacement of children.
Russia stands to gain strategic advantages, with the plan achieving goals including:
- Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO.
- Cementing control over Donbas and Crimea, at a minimum.
- Pressuring the West to acknowledge the need to consider “Russian security interests.”
- Opening the door to easing sanctions and economic reintegration.
However, Putin’s recent statements – linking acceptance of any agreement to Ukraine and the West recognizing Russia’s “historical right” to certain territories, and demanding written guarantees against NATO expansion – suggest he doesn’t see himself as compelled to accept everything Washington proposes, and continues to use war as a means to improve negotiating terms.
His repeated threats to expand operations toward Odesa and Mykolaiv also aim to convey that time is on Moscow’s side, and any future settlement will be based on the power dynamics on the ground.
In other words, the plan, for Russia, isn’t a concession, but a framework for solidifying some of its gains while seeking to obtain more, either at the negotiating table or on the battlefield, as long as the West remains divided and Ukraine is under immense pressure.
An Imperfect Peace and Open War – What Possible Horizon?
As of this writing, the plan remains in a holding pattern, with negotiations ongoing, albeit difficult. It has been partially modified following talks in Geneva between U.S. and Ukrainian delegations, and Europeans have drafted a counter-proposal, while Putin continues his military and field escalation, diminishing the chances of a quick resolution.
Theoretically, three main scenarios can be envisioned:
First: Ukraine’s acceptance of a revised version of the plan, with stronger U.S. and European security guarantees, modifications reducing the size of territorial concessions or linking them to internationally supervised referendums, and the use of frozen Russian assets to fund reconstruction. This scenario would provide a swift end to the war.
Second: A firm Ukrainian rejection and continuation of the war, with a gradual erosion of Western support if European and American capitals feel Kyiv is “rejecting the last chance for peace,” potentially weakening Ukraine’s position on the ground and allowing Moscow to reimpose its own plan.
Third: A realistic freeze of the war without a comprehensive agreement, with clashes continuing at a lower pace, and front lines solidifying, while the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine project remains in limbo, as Europe moves to strengthen its defenses and Russia continues to attempt to dismantle support for Ukraine through energy, politics, and migration.
In any case, the experience reveals that peace isn’t just a written text, but a balance of power, collective memory, and a perception of justice. Trump’s plan, in its current form, appears closer to an attempt to “manage” the war and reduce its costs, rather than addressing its root causes, as it ignores a fundamental question: can an international system stabilize if it accepts the principle of modifying borders by force, even if it stops a particular war?
In Conclusion
In short, President Trump’s plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war isn’t just 28 technical details, it’s a test of an entire model of peacemaking through deals, and of the ability of international law to withstand the logic of power. Accepting or rejecting it will not only determine Ukraine’s fate, but will also leave a lasting impact on how armed conflicts are managed in the future. Will the war be settled at a negotiating table drawn up by tanks, or within a legal framework attempting to balance realism and justice?
The views expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
