A new, highly contentious element has entered the intricate dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict: a peace blueprint championed by former President Donald Trump. While an unnamed 28-point document, it has not been officially released by any government. Nonetheless, an unfinalized text is now in the hands of journalists, its authenticity unchallenged by the White House, serving as the basis for a global diplomatic whirlwind. Trump’s proposal has triggered a torrent of international criticism, with reactions ranging from labeling it pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian to dismissing it as impractical and unsubstantial. Despite the widespread skepticism, the current U.S. administration appears determined to advance this document as the foundation for resolving the protracted hostilities between Moscow and Kyiv, with efforts already underway to achieve this goal.
The initial diplomatic maneuvers related to Trump’s plan commenced on Sunday, November 23rd, with high-level discussions in Geneva. Participants included representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Ukraine. Although initially announced as a meeting of national security advisors, Kyiv dispatched a robust delegation, notably including senior defense and security officials such as Rustem Umerov, Head of the National Security and Defense Council and Minister of Defense. The Ukrainian contingent was led by Andriy Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, who, according to media reports, conducted bilateral talks with his British, French, and German counterparts. These European allies, alongside the broader European Union leadership, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, had previously signaled their strong reservations to Trump, indicating that any final plan deemed detrimental to Kyiv’s interests would not receive their endorsement.
While all stakeholders debate who stands to gain or lose most should the plan materialize, one individual has already incurred significant reputational damage: Donald Trump himself. It appears his strategy may have aimed to partially divert attention from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal while simultaneously bolstering his often-questionable image as a global peacemaker. Instead, his team now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of defending the President to both allies and the American public, asserting that his actions are not aligned with Russian interests.
This unexpected turn of events largely stems from the public emergence of two starkly contrasting versions, both attributed to Trump’s plan. Between November 19-20, several reputable Western news outlets reported receiving details of proposals from the American president that largely echoed Russia’s established positions. These purportedly included a drastic reduction of the Ukrainian army (by a quarter or even half), an end to foreign military aid, the introduction of Russian as a second state language in Ukraine, and a cessation of perceived persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Such stipulations would realistically lead to the political demise of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and alienate his electorate. However, when the full text of Trump’s plan was officially published on November 21st (Moscow time) via the Axios portal, these controversial points were notably absent. Instead, the plan suggested a minor reduction in the Ukrainian army, maintaining a force of 600,000 personnel—a size Ukraine would likely need to assume in any ceasefire scenario. Furthermore, it did not prohibit foreign military assistance or even the deployment of foreign troops, provided they were not operating under a NATO flag (an important distinction given the previous intentions of U.S. allies to send forces under a hastily formed “coalition of the willing” post-ceasefire). Regarding language and religion, the document merely obligated Ukraine to adhere to EU standards for religious and linguistic minorities, which would at most grant Russian regional status—a provision Zelenskyy and his constituents would likely find acceptable and far less contentious.
The White House has either been unable or unwilling to coherently explain the existence of these two divergent versions and why one was leaked to the press ahead of the other. A bipartisan group of senators, including both Democrats and Republicans, attempted to clarify the situation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday.
Marion Michael Rounds, a Republican Senator from South Dakota, recounted Rubio’s alleged explanation regarding the Nov 19-20 version: “This is not our peace plan. It is a proposal we received, and as mediators, we agreed to its disclosure. But we did not disclose it. It was disclosed.” Rubio himself offered no direct comments to journalists, instead posting a message on social media on November 23rd stating: “The peace proposal was developed by the U.S. It is offered as a solid basis for ongoing negotiations. It is based on Russian proposals. But it is also based on previous and current proposals from Ukraine.”
Adding another layer of intrigue, Rubio is widely cited in the press as one of the plan’s architects. The other identified developer, U.S. Special Representative Steve Whitkoff, briefly posted—and then deleted—a social media update on November 20th suggesting that a mysterious individual, “K,” had prematurely leaked the plan to the press. The identity of “K” remains unknown to journalists. If an American, suspicion naturally falls on Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine, known for his pro-Ukrainian stance and some skepticism toward the President’s efforts on the Russian-Ukrainian front. Kellogg is set to depart his post in January, to be replaced by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who has already begun engaging with Ukrainian authorities. Curiously, Kellogg recently publicly endorsed Trump’s plan in an interview with Fox News, giving no indication that he intended to undermine the American President on his way out.
Regardless of its tumultuous inception, the 28 points, despite being widely termed a “plan,” are accurately described by Rubio as mere “proposals.” This document is essentially a memorandum, with nearly every point requiring the implementation of further agreements and legal instruments, often involving entities beyond Ukraine and Russia. For instance, Point 7 necessitates an amendment to the NATO charter to include a ban on Ukraine’s admission to the alliance. Point 14 is particularly illustrative, stipulating the transfer of frozen Russian assets in the EU for Ukraine’s reconstruction, with a portion of these investments to be managed under U.S. oversight. This would, at minimum, demand the consent of Belgium, under whose jurisdiction Euroclear, custodian of the majority of seized Russian foreign assets, operates.
Many aspects of Trump’s proposals suffer from overly generalized language, demanding significant clarification. Point 13, for example, discusses a phased lifting of sanctions against the Russian Federation without defining what these phases entail. The same point also calls for Russia and the U.S. to sign a long-term economic cooperation agreement, the specifics of which remain entirely vague.
All these complexities indicate that Trump’s plan cannot be swiftly implemented. Months, if not longer, would be required before its provisions could genuinely take effect.
Conversely, an immediate ceasefire is the one aspect explicitly stipulated to occur once Ukraine and Russia approve the plan. This, however, presents a clear disconnect with Moscow’s established position. Russia has consistently maintained that any negotiations must first address the original causes of the conflict, with a ceasefire only being the final outcome. Trump’s proposal fundamentally reverses this sequence, urging an end to hostilities by the end of this year. Ukraine has been given a deadline of November 27th to agree to the plan. No such timeline has been communicated to Russia by the White House, and bilateral Russian-American talks on this issue have yet to commence, raising perhaps the most significant outstanding question surrounding Trump’s ambitious initiative: will they ever begin?