The Ukraine-war-following press and commentators have had to weigh in on the latest bright shiny object, in the form of rumors of revived peace talks between the US and Russia. An outline of the purported 28 point plan is on Twitter; Larry Johnson reports it came from the Russian negotiator, Kiril Dimitriev, a special envoy to Putin.
Full text of 28 point Trump peace plan that is published by Ukrainian MP & media:
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be… pic.twitter.com/vRrunW0q8a
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) November 20, 2025
The negotiation scheme (not clear whether this term sheet or a somewhat similar outline of key provisions) has already been rejected by Ukraine and the Europeans, although Bloomberg says Zelensky after having been browbeaten by a delegation of US military officials is deigning to entertain it.
Us Army Sec Driscoll, Army Chief of Staff Gen George, and Gen Donahue (US Army Europe & Africa) have just delivered one-line message to Zelensky – THE WAR IS LOST, NEGOTIATE NOW OR DIE NEXT WEEK. Listen to podcast with Jamarl Thomas. https://t.co/h28QrYk7zn pic.twitter.com/7cV8H3b7lu
— Dances_with_Bears (@bears_with) November 20, 2025
Helmer points out in a related post that while Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov maintains that there are no discussions underway beyond the items in the Alaska summit, other Russian-connected sources contend that there could be competition between official and unofficial channels. And Helmer further points out that the 28 points are similar to a 31 point outline from Russia in June. But one suspects that artful wording has considerably shifted what some of those statements said, such as a very cheeky claim in the Telegraph and elsewhere that Russia is being asked to lease the Donbass. Lordie.
As we show below, Johnson and other Russia-sympathetic commentators have described in detail this proposal will be unacceptable to the Russian side. Even before getting to the outline, the elephant in the room is that it is now obvious that Russia will win and can decide how far to go in territorial acquisition. So why should they concede anything, particularly since Europe is just about guaranteed to behave as badly as it is no matter how the war concludes (absent perhaps a continued grind producing more and more regime changes in key EU member states)?
And to underscore the point, a fresh story:
A new, detailed post on Ameriknets sets forth in detail the latest development in the electricity war. Its conclusions:
The available evidence suggests that Russian strikes are outpacing Ukraine’s ability to repair its grid. Two weeks after the strike on the 7th, a generous timeframe to complete major repairs considering how efficient Ukraine’s engineers have become, the situation has only continued to deteriorate. Major urban centers are now without power for the majority of the day. With the situation spiraling out of control, outage schedules have been temporarily discarded in some areas….
The damage to transmission infrastructure has been severe enough that Ukraine’s three nuclear power plants, which provide more than half of its energy, have been forced to further limit their output as their connections to the rest of the country are severed.
A perfect storm is now hitting Ukraine, as political, battlefield, and infrastructural pressure mount to unprecedented levels since the war began. Full grid collapse is now on the table. It’s just a question of if the Russians will choose to pull the plug.
This outcome should come as no surprise. We have been pointing out since the idea of US-Russia negotiations came up that they would fail due to the lack of an overlap in the bargaining positions of both sides…..which are not the US and Russia, but Russia and Ukraine, with Ukraine backed by an increasingly divided set of coalition partners.
Before we get to issues of substance, as in highlighting why many of the points in this plan are unacceptable, let’s consider oft-neglected process issues.
Despite the press treating these provisions as hashed out by the US and Russia, neither negotiator is operating in an official capacity. Steve Witkoff is not a member of any US official body but is a special advisor to Donald Trump. Dimitriev is operating in an analogous capacity for Vladimir Putin. Both should be viewed as agents who cannot bind their principals but can float ideas. It is not clear how much official backing any of these ideas had. The Russians are well aware of Witkoff’s inability to make firm commitments. When Witkoff met with Putin in early August, Witkoff presented a proposal that had enough promise for Putin to agree to meet Trump in Alaska. As has since been recounted, Putin felt it necessary to review all the terms with Trump in person and get his confirmation that Trump was on board with them. Similarly, Larry Johnson just interviewed the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Maria Zharakova. She said the ministry had not received a formal document. So as far as the Russian government is concerned, this is still a trial balloon, although presumably they will be in receipt soon.
Aside from the Russian disposition to adhere to formalities, another reason for its skepticism is that the US cannot commit key members of the coalition, Ukraine, the UK, and European states, and they have not been on board with the process of settling the war, save unless “settlement” is tantamount to Russian capitulation. That happened dramatically with the flip-flop after the Alaska summit, where Lavrov later reported that Trump said he would get Zelensky to agree to the outline then. Instead, after meeting with Zelensky, Trump repudiated the preliminary deal and reverted to the older Ukraine “ceasefire first, deal if ever later” formula that Trump had dropped in Alaska.
We see again and again Trump pretending he can be a broker, when the US is a principal. The tacit assumption has been that the US can browbeat Ukraine, the UK and Europe into compliance when that had not happened. And it is vastly less likely to happen than ever due to the US refusing to fund the war and cutting back on NATO support. He who has the gold sets the rules, but gold-lover Trump has forgotten that. Europe has accepted the premise that it will have to fund Ukraine even though it has no idea as to how to do so ex stealing Russia’s frozen assets.
To give one example of that wee problem, see this item from the list:
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages on a case-by-case basis;
b. The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities;
c. Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
Notice the lack of agency for item (a)? The sanctions are not just US sanctions. The EU is up to its 19th package. And the EU has worked itself into such a fervor over Russia as an imminent threat that there is no way they will unwind them.
Point 14 has $100 billion of the frozen Russian assets going to US-led reconstruction fund…where the US gets 50% of the profits! And I want a pony.
There’s a lot of speculation as to why this scheme now, when that line of speculation does not seem productive, given how erratic Trump is. But since Trump knows nothing beyond what Fox News and key insiders tell him, the idea that he was trying to take advantage of a small beer corruption scandal, relative to all the hands-over-fists looting of foreign contributions, seems improbable. That is confirmed by the very deep and detailed reading of the political tea leaves by the site Events in Ukraine, which sees the scandal uproar as the doings of opposition figures taking advantage of rising upset in the Rada over the prospect of a Ukraine loss, plus simmering resentment over the earlier Zelensky attempt to quash the investigation bodies. Alexander Mercouris reports he has confirmation of that general story line from a Hungarian contact, who points out that the anti-corruption agencies are funded by the EU, so there’s no US nexus. The UK and EU do not want Ukraine to settle the war. A rare official editorial weighs at the Financial Ties in against the idea of a unity government (and any move to replace Zelensky now) as too destabilizing, so they press for a house-cleaning instead. A “national unity government” is what the Rada rebels led by former Prime Minister Petro Poroshenko were seeking, so the Financial Times editorial suggests they lack the external support they would need.
It seems just as likely that Trump felt the need to again look like the driver of events after his Epstein climbdown and now pushback on Venezuela, including a commercial urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders. Mind you, the latter went live after the Witkoff-Dimitriev talks had gotten going, but that along with continuing deteriorating polls shows that Trump is facing more and more opposition. One of the last things he wants is to be depicted as having lost Ukraine. Trump is deluded enough to think he can somehow get a deal despite the vast evidence that the only one that could happen is some form of Ukraine capitulation.
Let’s look at some of the many thumb’s down reviews of this tired rerun of the peace pact drama. The Financial Times reports on yet another piece of typical Trump empty bravura, that he wants Zelensky to capitulate by Thanksgiving. I seem to recall he similarly demanded a summit with Putin by Valentine’s Day, which didn’t happen either.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett adopts a suitably dismissive stance:
As I worried yesterday, none of this is serious. There is no reason whatsoever why Russia, winning on the battlefield, with Putin’s June 2024 terms long outdated by battefield advances, amidst a forever stream of evidence that confirms that the US is agreement-incapable, would want to pick up on this insane mishmash, let alone why Ukraine or Europe would sign it either. Note that it is only “expected” that NATO will not expand. Yes, Ukraine would have to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO and NATO would agree a statute prohibiting acceptance of NATO as a member, but Ukraine would retain the right to EU membership.
Once again, after four miserable years of comparable US stupidity, the whole thing is being framed as Mr. Nice USA sorting out a playground scruffle between two equally pugnacious little boys. The Washington mindset, in other words, is a fantasy of benign hegemony. Ukraine would be allowed an absolutely idiotic 600,000-sized army (Russia in 2022 was talking of a cap of 85,000) and given “reliable” security guarantees. No foreign troops in Ukraine (I assume but do not see this as explicitly stated) but European fighter aircraft would be stationed in Poland.
Oddly, Boyd-Barrett does not flag this item as a no-go:
Kherson and Zapporizhzhia would be frozen along the line of contact; Russia would renounce other annexed territories (other than Crimea and the Donbass).
Russia has changed its constitution to incorporate all of Kherson and Zaporzhizhia into the Russian Federation. Even though Russia does not yet occupy them, securing all four oblasts in full has been one of Russia’s consistent requirements for ending the war since Putin’s Foreign Ministry speech in June 2024.
From Mark Wauck:
It looks like a stunt. Perhaps there’s an expectation or hope that Putin will get sucked into this. But when you read it you see that very little is actually hard and fast—except for those items that Russia will likely see as unacceptable, it’s full of dialogue and discussion and expectations. Nothing really binding. This is undoubtedly why the US is pushing this hard while the Russians are denying that they’ve agreed to anything—Trump is trying to stampede the Russians. Much of the document appears totally unacceptable for any thinking Russian. Which is probably the point—to try to wrong foot Putin and Russia in world opinion.
Larry Johnson provided a fine recap of why the Russians will have to say “nyet” in The Alleged 28-Point Ukrainian and Russian Peace Plan, where he (like many others) goes through the entire list. Some of deadly items he highlighted:
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.
The word, expected, is a major stumbling block… Russia will insist on an iron-clad guarantee that NATO will end expansion and remove weapon systems from Romania and Poland that are capable of launching nuclear missiles….
6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
In February 2022, at the start of Russia’s special military operation, the total size of the Ukrainian military was about 260,000–280,000 active-duty personnel, including all branches (ground forces, air force, navy, airborne, marines, and special operations). There is no way that Russia will agree to a 600,000 number. During the negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul in March 2022, Russia demanded a peacetime cap of 85,000 active personnel for Ukraine’s armed forces, a figure far below Ukraine’s pre-war standing army of approximately 200,000–250,000 troops. This was part of broader Russian demands for demilitarization, including restrictions on tanks (e.g., fewer than 400), aircraft (e.g., 60–80 combat aircraft), missiles (range limited to 40 km), and artillery systems
/blockquote>9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.
I believe that Russia will demand specific limitations on the type of NATO aircraft that will be allowed in Poland.
Simplicius flags the characteristic amateurism of the process….:
Now the plan has come together with the announcement of a secretly-developed, major new peace formula for the ending of the war. The problem is, the details are extremely scattered and incongruous, leading to the perception of the proceedings being more the product of some smoke-filled mafia ‘sit-down’ rather than a professionally transparent political process.
That’s because—as has become de rigueur under Trump’s leadership—the details are filled with hazy ambiguities and contradictions.
…and some howlers:
The most important part is: the agreement is “legally binding”.
Legally bound by whom, exactly? Who is the guarantor here, Trump? The failing autarch likely to be impeached after 2026? What happens then? Clearly, from Russia’s standpoint, there is little merit here.
Armchair Warlord aptly notes:
Deal-breakers in here:
– The Russians will not accept territorial ambiguity or demilitarized zones on their own territory.
– The Russians will not accept “conditional” recognition of their own nation’s borders.
– The Russians will not hand over Russian children.
– ZNPP is a Russian nuclear power plant that must be managed by Rosatom; the IAEA is a joke.
– The Russians are not going to give amnesty to Ukraine’s parade of Nazis and war criminals.
– A 600,000-man AFU is ludicrous.
If the deal is “Donetsk, Lugansk, and uti possidetis, all legally recognized by NATO as the international border,” a 60,000-man AFU with no long-range weapons, Russian language and religious rights, and a ban on the Nazis? Then we might be getting somewhere.
Not to mention this bit, according to the Telegraph:
Russia will pay a rental fee to Ukraine for de facto control over Donbass under US plan — The Telegraph
The plan would force Ukraine to lease the eastern Donbass region to Russia, ceding operational control while maintaining legal ownership
In what world would that happen in?
Even some less-critical-seeming items are unlikely to wash in Russia. One is that both sides will forgive each other for acts perpetrated during the war. But Ukraine soldiers brutally tortured Russian soldiers early on, with some of quite a bit of video evidence making its way into Russian Telegram. Russia promised war crimes trials. And tellingly, Putin just remarked that crimes committed by Nazis have no statute of limitations. How can Russia forgive these Nazi wannabes in light of that view?
As for the UK/Europe side, some of the raspberries. From the Wall Street Journal:
European officials pushed back against a U.S. proposal for ending the Ukraine war, saying that Kyiv must approve any plan and that the conflict must not end with a Ukrainian capitulation.
European officials will now have to reprise a role they have played periodically since President Trump’s return to the White House in January: using connections in Washington to try to pull the administration back from a proposal they see as too favorable to Russia….
European officials said they hadn’t been involved in drafting the plan and hadn’t so far been briefed on the U.S. proposal. A senior European diplomat said it wasn’t clear whether Europeans will get more information from Washington soon….
The plan includes several elements that Ukraine and its European allies have long opposed. It says that Ukraine would have to surrender some land in Ukraine’s east that Kyiv still holds. It would place a cap on the size of Ukraine’s military and reduce the type of long-range weapons Kyiv receives from allies, which European officials have warned could open the way for a future Russian attack on Ukraine and more loss of territory.
It would also block a so-called reassurance force that the Europeans have offered to send to Ukraine if there is a peace deal.
From the Financial Times:
The 28-point peace plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump on Thursday and developed by US and Russian negotiators, envisages major concessions by Kyiv that would cross its long-standing red lines…
They added that US officials expect Zelenskyy to sign the agreement “before Thanksgiving” on Thursday next week, with the aim of presenting a peace deal in Moscow later this month and concluding the process by early December.
That timeline appears highly unlikely to be achieved since officials in Zelenskyy’s office said there were several points that were clear red lines for Kyiv.
They added they were working on counter proposals to present to the US side. Ukrainian civil society is also likely to push back against any deal that is perceived as capitulation or more favourable to Moscow.
“It’s minerals deal 2.0,” said a senior Ukrainian official, referring to the contentious accord between Kyiv and Washington thrashed out over several months earlier this year that gave the US rights to Ukraine’s critical minerals.
From Politico’s morning European newsletter:
U.S. TOUTS “AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE” FOR PEACE: European officials are scrambling to weigh in on a peace deal that Washington wants Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sign in the coming days. The deal, which Axios and others have published in full, requires Kyiv to make significant concessions.
Europe speaks up: Following reports that the 28-point plan would force Kyiv to reduce the size of its army, hand over the entire Donbas and legally recognize territories seized by Moscow’s forces, top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas weighed in to say it contained “no concessions from Russia.” Among other measures, the plan would see Russia invited to rejoin the G8.
Ceasefire first: German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Russia must “immediately halt the attacks on energy infrastructure” now that winter is beginning,…
Talking up a storm: An EU official texted Playbook that there was a “flurry of diplomacy” ongoing as Europeans try to shore up the Ukrainian position and avoid a agreement that’s lopsided in Russia’s favor. “We can’t afford a deal that endangers European security,” the official said…..
Toning it down: Dave Butler, communications adviser to the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, said the U.S. and Ukraine were discussing a “collaborative” and “comprehensive” plan to end the war.
Behind closed doors: The emphasis on collaboration hints at flexibility on some demands in the plan — which Ukraine’s foreign minister blasted on Thursday during closed-door comments with EU foreign ministers, according to a person aware of his remarks. “They want Ukraine to capitulate,” Andrii Sybiha said during a video call, per the same person…
The bottom line: Ukraine has been here before, namely when Trump sought to impose a lopsided mining agreement on Kyiv. The Ukrainian side ultimately agreed to the plan, with considerable modifications. But despite all the drama, the deal didn’t bring peace any closer. This time may be no different.
However, keep in mind that the new conventional wisdom even among the not-entirely-rabid Ukraine-backers is that it can’t hold out for more than a few months unless something big breaks its way. This crowd seems to harbor the fond notion that they can break the Russian economy if they just hang on.
Predictably, European leaders have rallied behind Zelensky. From the Guardian’s lead story Starmer, Merz and Macron confirm full support for Ukraine after call with Zelenskyy about US plan – Europe live. Importantly, they are trying to throw a spanner by insisting that they have to agree to the pact too:
Merz, Macron, Starmer confirm full support for Ukraine after call with Zelenskyy, Germany confirms
A spokesperson for the German chancellor, Fredrich Merz, has just confirmed that Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and UK’s Keir Starmer spoke with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, earlier this morning.
The readout, published in German, said the leaders confirmed their “unwavering and full support for Ukraine on the path to a lasting and just peace.”
The leaders also “welcomed the US efforts to end the war in Ukraine,”…
But, crucially, they also noted that any peace agreement “affecting European states, the European Union, or Nato requires the approval of European partners or a consensus among the allies.”
And fresh reports are coming in that the US is trying to bludgeon Ukraine into compliance…which is another reason for trying to keep the Europeans in the dark. From the Telegraph:
The United States has threatened to cut off weapons and intelligence to Ukraine unless it signs Donald Trump’s peace deal by next Thursday.
Sources said Ukraine was under greater pressure from Washington to bow to the US president’s demands than in previous negotiation efforts.
“They want to stop the war and want Ukraine to pay the price,” one of the sources told Reuters.
Volodymyr Zelensky said on Thursday he would use the plan as the basis for negotiations with Russia but Kyiv has warned its red lines must not be crossed in any peace deal.
The Ukrainian leader spoke to his European allies on Friday, including Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, who “welcomed efforts of the US” but called for a “just and lasting peace” for Ukraine.
Note that cutting off weapons is close to an empty threat, given how little the US has to offer. Intelligence is another matter. But can the US deliver even here? Scott Ritter has said that the CIA’s Russia House unit, which is ferociously hostile to Russia, is an uncontrolled operation, with even the formidable “bloody” Gina Haspel failing to bring it to heel when tasked to do so. Admittedly CIA refusniks might not have access to the full panoply of critical signit. But could they conceivably be able to provide enough to allow for targeting?
In addition, the big reason for Trump’s rush, and in particular to secure Zelenksy’s capitulation is to deny Ukraine hawks time to organize to stymie Trump politically. I doubt Zelensky has the cojones to try to arrange a visit with, say, Lindsay Graham. But a call?
Part of the US messaging campaign to win over Ukraine supporters is to depict the scheme as containing solid protections, per the Axios headline: Trump peace plan for Ukraine includes NATO-style security guarantee. Anyone who has been following this and other sites on what Article 5 amounts to knows full well it’s a very weak obligation.
We’ll stop here, even though there is much more we could say. This is an overly-dynamic and some of the uncertainties will start to sort themselves out in pretty short order.
