Anatomy of a 28-point peace plan... reduced to 18
- A peace plan that reveals a geopolitical standoff
- The structure of the initial 28-point plan
- Geopolitical reactions
A peace plan that reveals a geopolitical standoff
The US peace plan for Ukraine is not just another technical document, but a true historical test. Indeed, it tests the West's ability to balance realism and justice, as well as Europe's strategic lucidity and the political and social resilience of an exhausted but determined Ukraine. For this reason, the evolution of the text—which went from 28 points to a reduced version of 18 or 19 articles after the Geneva talks between Washington and Kyiv—cannot be considered a simple formal adjustment, but rather the reflection of a silent tug-of-war between three strategic lines: Russia's, the US's transactional approach, and Europe's, which is still hesitant.
Based on published leaks and analyses by various think tanks, especially the CSIS, it is possible to reconstruct the architecture of the original draft.
The structure of the initial 28-point plan
The original plan was organised around a set of territorial concessions, the strategic neutralisation of Ukraine, a still undefined security architecture, a chapter dedicated to sanctions and reconstruction, and finally, an internal political dimension focused on the occupied areas. Taken as a whole, this framework hinted at a logic of asymmetrical exchanges that greatly benefited Moscow, while limiting Ukrainian sovereignty in both territorial and military terms.
Over the weeks, revisions introduced by the American side and reactions from European partners led to the removal of several particularly problematic points. Thus, some of the toughest demands regarding territorial concessions, the most severe restrictions on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces, provisions that marginalised the European Union in the governance of reconstruction funds, and certain proposals that were excessively favourable to the Kremlin in the areas of energy and sanctions disappeared from the final text.
A problematic core remains
Despite these adjustments, the heart of the plan remains intact: the idea of a trade-off between territory and peace. Although some elements have been softened to make it more palatable to Kiev and Brussels, the overall philosophy of the proposal continues to revolve around a logic that Ukraine has always considered unacceptable.
Geopolitical reactions
Ukraine: between moral rejection and strategic necessity
From Kiev's perspective, accepting a document that consolidates the permanent loss of territory is politically unviable. However, Zelensky has hinted at his willingness to discuss some sensitive issues, although he insists that Europe must be part of the process and demands stronger security guarantees. Ukraine is thus caught between the real fatigue of a society devastated by war, US pressure to reach an agreement, and a patriotism intensified by Russia's crimes and destruction. Under these circumstances, any territorial concession would be seen by many citizens — and especially by the military — as treason.
Russia: cold satisfaction and pressure strategy
For his part, Vladimir Putin presents the plan as a possible starting point, but he does so while still demanding Ukraine's withdrawal from regions that it does not even fully control. In this way, he combines an implicit acceptance that much of the document reflects his positions with a calculated overbid aimed at maintaining military initiative on the ground before any eventual signing.
The United States: the temptation of a “grand bargain”
In Washington, the logic of the deal seems to prevail: ending a costly war, freeing up resources for strategic competition with China and, at the same time, projecting an image of diplomatic success. It is therefore not surprising that various US experts have pointed out that the first draft of the plan is largely inspired by a Russian non-paper, which explains its initial bias.
Europe and NATO: a late but significant awakening
Meanwhile, Europe – through the United Kingdom, France and Germany – has drawn up a 28-point counter-plan that corrects some of the most unbalanced elements, introducing less stringent military limits and rejecting further territorial concessions, as well as clarifying security guarantees. As a result, several Eastern European capitals—such as Warsaw, Vilnius and Tallinn—have warned that a ‘bad deal’ in Ukraine would have immediate consequences on their military spending, which would increase dramatically to counter the Russian threat.