Mohammad-Hossein Lotfollahi، according Khabaronline, an Iranian, For Ukrainians, now living through one of the darkest chapters of their nation’s history, fighting on two fronts has become a grinding and exhausting reality. On one front, they are struggling with all their strength to halt Russia’s war machine and prevent further towns and villages from falling. On the other, they are working to resist pressure from the United States, which is attempting to push Ukraine toward what many see as a form of “surrender” to Moscow.
On Thursday, November 20, U.S. President Donald Trump sent a high-ranking delegation to Kyiv to present a 28-point peace plan to senior Ukrainian officials. Under this plan, Ukraine would be required to give up parts of its territory and accept many of Russia’s demands in order to bring the war to an end. Washington also imposed a one-week deadline and threatened to completely suspend military and economic assistance if Kyiv refused to accept the proposal swiftly.
Although European objections and Ukrainian diplomatic efforts led to modifications of the U.S. proposal—reducing it from 28 points to 20 points and eliminating some provisions—the failure to resolve the war’s most sensitive issues, particularly territorial questions, has kept anxiety in Kyiv high. These concerns are far from unfounded.
Many observers labeled the original plan a “capitulation plan for Ukraine.” It was presented at a moment when Kyiv faces painful realities: declining Western—especially American—support; growing public fatigue with the war; and acute manpower shortages. All of this has pushed Ukraine toward a precipice where a fall could endanger its very statehood.
Serhii Maidukov, a Ukrainian analyst writing for Al Jazeera, described the situation bluntly: “The army faces shortages of supplies. The government has failed to maintain motivation or national mobilization—and in fact has produced the opposite result. Men are now entering the fourth year of war while women cannot wait for them forever. Divorce rates are rising, exhaustion is deepening, and public morale is collapsing. Since 2022, prosecutors have opened more than 255,000 cases of unauthorized absence and over 56,000 cases of desertion. In the first ten months of 2025 alone, there were 162,500 cases of absence and 21,600 desertions. Reports indicate that more than 21,000 soldiers left the army in October—an all-time monthly high. Social injustice is spreading.”
Demographically, the picture is equally bleak: “Ukraine’s population has declined from over 50 million at independence to around 31 million in territory controlled by Kyiv by early 2025. Birth rates remain lower than death rates, and the fertility rate has fallen to about one child per woman.”
Against this backdrop, the United States—Ukraine’s principal backer since the start of the war—has chosen to pressure Kyiv, not Moscow, to bring the war to an end.
What Was in the 28-Point Plan?
The original U.S. proposal, now revised, offered substantial concessions to Russia while imposing tight restrictions on Ukraine. Although it promised recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and “credible security guarantees,” the lack of clarity regarding how such guarantees would function undermined their credibility.
Under the plan, Ukraine would be required to amend its constitution to declare permanent neutrality, renounce NATO membership forever, and abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons. NATO troop deployment on Ukrainian soil would be banned, while Ukraine’s armed forces would be downsized from roughly 850,000 troops to fewer than 600,000—an alarming requirement given continued Russian threats.
The only tangible benefit for Kyiv was the pledge to keep the path to European Union membership open.
On territorial issues, the plan would effectively recognize battlefield realities: Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be treated de facto as Russian territory, while front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson would become new borders. Even more controversially, Ukrainian-controlled areas of Donetsk would have to be evacuated, demilitarized, and transformed into a “buffer zone,” yet counted on paper as Russian territory.
Additional incentives to Moscow included restoring Russia’s access to global markets, initiating talks to lift sanctions, and even re-inviting President Vladimir Putin to the G8. Oversight of the entire process would fall to a “Peace Council” chaired by Donald Trump himself.
The White House sought to force acceptance of the plan by imposing a one-week deadline. Trump bluntly told reporters that Zelensky “has no choice but to like this deal,” arguing that Ukraine “has no cards to play.” A further political clause required Kyiv to hold presidential elections within 100 days after agreement, directly challenging Zelensky’s position as his legal mandate has expired.
Reactions were marked by anger, fear, and cautious diplomacy. Zelensky—initially cooperative—later rejected the plan indirectly in a video statement, describing the choice as one between “sacrificing dignity or losing a vital partner.”
Ukrainian citizens denounced the proposal as favoring Russia, while government officials hurried to negotiate amendments with American diplomats.
European allies—largely sidelined throughout the process—objected strongly. Britain, France, and Germany proposed an alternative 28-point European peace initiative modeled on the U.S. framework.
Ukraine has consistently argued that territorial concessions are legally unacceptable without a national referendum. As Russian bombardment continues to inflict heavy losses, many Ukrainians adamantly reject any plan that resembles surrender after four years of devastating war.
How Does the 20-Point Plan Differ?
Unlike the widely leaked 28-point proposal, details of the revised 20-point plan remain limited, based primarily on statements from U.S. and Ukrainian officials.
Deputy Foreign Minister Serhii Kyslytsya, a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team, told the Financial Times that talks were “extremely tense” and nearly collapsed. Ultimately, however, a draft acceptable to both sides produced a “positive atmosphere.”
According to Kyslytsya, Ukrainian and American negotiators reached consensus on many items, while decisions on territorial disputes and relations with NATO were elevated to the level of the presidents of Ukraine and the United States.
He emphasized that Ukraine’s delegation had no mandate to concede territory, since any such step would legally require a referendum.
Kyslytsya also stated that the U.S. agreed to remove the clause requiring a reduction of Ukraine’s troop numbers. Additionally, the provision granting blanket amnesty for all war criminals was scrapped and replaced with language acknowledging “the suffering of war victims.”
Separately, a senior U.S. official told The New York Times that changes had been made to clauses concerning the permanent ban on NATO forces in Ukraine.
The Daily Telegraph, citing informed sources, reported that Washington might ultimately recognize Russian control over Crimea and other occupied territories, despite European opposition. The source said: “It’s becoming clearer every day that Americans don’t care about Europe’s position. Their view is: Europeans can do whatever they like.”
According to this account, U.S. negotiators remain committed to their original strategic approach despite modifications to the text.
Comments by President Zelensky on Monday helped outline the unresolved gaps of the new plan. Speaking alongside French President Emmanuel Macron, Zelensky defined Kyiv’s priorities: obtaining security guarantees, preserving national sovereignty, and preventing any concessions that would legitimize Russian occupation of Ukrainian land.
What Will Ukraine Do?
Despite the many unfavorable aspects of the revised plan, Ukraine may ultimately have little choice but to accept it. Some analysts argue that this may represent the only realistic agreement Kyiv can achieve under current conditions.
Jamie Dettmer, foreign policy editor at Politico, wrote on Friday, November 28: “In the present circumstances, despite Ukraine’s heroism, there is little chance that it can turn the tide. It is unlikely to emerge from the most dangerous winter of the war stronger or more resilient. Instead, it could find itself in a far weaker position—on the battlefield, at home, and in domestic politics.”
He concluded: “As Ukraine tries to navigate America’s divisive peace proposal, it may ultimately be the best deal it can hope to secure.”
Your Comment