Fresh talks on Ukraine are underway as US insists it authored peace plan
Delegations from Ukraine, the US and Europe gather quietly in a hotel.
They bring a 28-point “peace” proposal. But critics say it reads like a Russian blueprint. Kyiv’s leaders call it controversial.
The White House insists Washington wrote it.
The world is watching as these fresh talks begin – a test of diplomacy after three years of war.
New Geneva talks open between US, Ukraine and allies on a peace framework.
A 28-point proposal backed by the US sparks debate over its authorship and demands.
The plan’s terms – ceding territory, permanent neutrality, army limits – have alarmed Ukraine.
US officials say they drafted the plan; critics (and some US senators) call it a Russian “wish list.”
European leaders urge revisions to safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty.
President Zelensky is cautiously hopeful but stresses Ukraine must also keep defending itself.
Background
The Ukraine war began in February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion. Cities were besieged, and millions of people fled. NATO and EU countries poured support into Kyiv, sending weapons and aid. But efforts to end the fighting have repeatedly broken down. Early in the war, diplomats from both sides met in Turkey, Belarus and other venues. They tried to hash out ceasefires, troop withdrawals and security guarantees. Those talks failed. Key issues – Ukrainian borders, Crimea, and Russia’s annexed regions – were too big to resolve quickly.
By late 2025, a new twist emerged. The administration of US President Donald Trump unveiled a 28-point plan for peace. Word of the plan leaked online. It outlined a hard bargain: Ukraine would recognize Russian control over Crimea and parts of Donbas, renounce NATO, and shrink its military. In return, the plan offered Russia a return to the G8 and use of frozen assets for rebuilding Ukraine. The draft divided opinion. In Ukraine and many allied capitals, people reacted with shock. Western leaders said publicly that the plan as leaked would leave Ukraine vulnerable. Ukraine’s leaders said any agreement must protect its sovereignty and not reward aggression.
Now, delegates are talking. The Geneva meetings are meant to “iron out details” and ensure all voices are heard. President Zelensky called these talks a sign that “diplomacy has been activated.” His team met first with British, French and German advisers – and called that session “very constructive.” Next come discussions with the US delegation. Behind the scenes, negotiators are trying to refine the proposal before showing it to Ukraine.
Core Analysis
Key elements of the US-backed 28-point proposal:
Territorial concessions: Ukraine would recognize Russian control of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In practical terms, this means formally accepting as “de facto” Russian the areas Moscow seized.
Neutrality and NATO: Ukraine must pledge never to join NATO. The proposal even calls for NATO to formally rule out Ukraine’s future membership. This locks Ukraine into neutrality.
Military limits: Ukraine’s armed forces would be cut to roughly 600,000 troops. (For context, Ukraine’s military is now at least twice that size.) The plan includes caps and restrictions on its army to limit future attacks.
Economic measures: Hundreds of billions in Russian assets (frozen since 2022) would be used to rebuild Ukraine. The US would take half of any profit from investing those funds, and Europe would add at least $100bn for reconstruction.
Reintegration of Russia: The plan calls for Russia’s return to the global stage. It suggests inviting Russia back into the Group of Eight and easing sanctions in exchange for peace.
These proposals immediately set off alarm bells in Kyiv. Giving up land that soldiers fought and died to defend is deeply unpopular. Renouncing a future alliance with NATO is seen as giving Moscow a veto on Ukrainian security. President Zelensky has repeatedly rejected the idea of ceding territory. For him, any peace must respect Ukraine’s hard borders and democratic choices.
US stance vs. international doubts: The White House and President Trump say the plan is American. Trump ambassador Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio claim they spent weeks crafting it, with some input from both Russian and Ukrainian officials. Rubio posted on social media that the proposal was “authored by the US” as a framework for talks. He admitted it draws on Russian ideas but insisted American hands shaped it.
Yet high drama erupted in Washington. A trio of US senators – Republicans and Democrats on the intelligence committee – said they had spoken to Rubio en route to Geneva. The senators claimed Rubio told them the 28-point draft was actually Russia’s version of peace, leaked by Moscow, and not the White House’s own text. They described the document as written in Russian style. This directly contradicted the administration’s line. The State Department immediately called the senators’ story “blatantly false,” and Rubio posted again that the plan was indeed drawn up by the US, albeit with “input from the Russian side” and Ukraine.
The confusion laid bare a rift inside the US government. It has European capitals scrambling. If true, the allegations suggest a lack of coordination – and raise questions about whether Washington is shifting toward Moscow’s position. White House allies and even Ukrainian officials want clarity: Did the US write this plan or not? That controversy now shadows the Geneva talks.
International reactions and tensions: Europe’s leaders are uneasy. At a G20 summit, the UK, France, Germany and half a dozen other nations issued a joint statement. They said the draft plan might contain “essential elements” for peace, but as written it “would leave Ukraine vulnerable to attack.” They worried especially about clauses on borders and military limits. France’s President Emmanuel Macron warned that any deal “must be good for Ukrainians.” Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz agreed, saying war can only end if Ukraine gives its full consent. Finland, Ireland, Canada and others joined in, urging that the proposal is only a starting point and needs more work.
The European Commission (EU’s executive branch) took a similar line. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said a credible plan must stop the killing – without sowing seeds of future conflict. She emphasized three red lines: Ukraine’s borders cannot be changed by force, its military must be strong enough to deter fresh attack, and the EU’s role in any peace must be respected (including Ukraine’s eventual EU membership). If an agreement fails those tests, von der Leyen warned, it won’t hold.
Russia’s reaction has been predictably positive. President Vladimir Putin said the plan “could form the basis of a final settlement” if everyone buys in. His spokesperson said they see “new elements,” though officially no written proposal was presented to Moscow yet. In practice, the plan aligns with long-term Russian goals: cementing gains and leaving Ukraine disarmed. Even before Geneva, Moscow has mobilized diplomats to push this narrative – implying they trust the US may be pivoting to their terms.
Geopolitical stakes: All this is playing out amid deep skepticism in Ukraine. On the front lines, soldiers are still fighting and dying. One eastern-Ukraine commander told reporters bitterly: “Why are we fighting then? If [the Russians] want us to give up everything?” He described Russia’s attacks as relentless – Ukrainian units facing drone swarms and missile strikes daily. A weeks-long drone barrage was called a “nightmare” for the troops. In Kyiv, a soldier’s widow was quoted by the BBC saying flatly: “This is not a peace plan. It is a plan to continue the war.”
Yet Ukraine’s president is willing to talk. He praises the fact that world leaders are finally all at the table in Geneva. Zelensky says the conversations are going well and he hopes for a “constructive” result. He even noted some proposal elements could reflect Ukraine’s own interests – but only if the end goal truly ends the war. His office said Ukraine is preparing its negotiating team, led by Zelensky’s chief Andriy Yermak, to continue discussions – not just with Washington but with Russia someday.
American officials in Geneva speak positively. A senior US official told reporters that momentum is building. The US and Ukraine, he said, are optimistic as negotiators “iron out details” of the plan. But he admitted tough issues remain. Hard decisions on territory and security still divide them.
Why This Matters
The outcome of these Geneva talks could reshape global diplomacy. This is more than a regional dispute: it pits American policy against the unity of NATO and the rules of international law. If Ukraine is asked to surrender land and commit to neutrality, the very notion of responding to aggression with sanctions and support is undermined. Observers warn that accepting such terms would “reward aggression,” sending a dangerous message worldwide.
For NATO, the implications are huge. The alliance was built on collective defense and the principle that nations choose their alliances freely. If Ukraine is blocked from NATO under this deal, some fear it splits the alliance: countries that want to stand firmly with Ukraine versus those worrying about provoking Russia. If the US appears to side with Russia on these core issues, trust in American leadership could erode. Future crises might be harder to solve if allies doubt Washington’s commitments.
Domestically in the US, the controversy is a political flashpoint. The peace plan comes as President Trump is juggling foreign policy and domestic ambitions. Pushing Ukraine so hard by Thanksgiving has a strong political flavor to critics: it looks like a unilateral ultimatum. If aid is threatened over a deal, that could weaken Ukraine’s hand. Some argue it serves a particular US interest or a specific administration’s agenda more than a genuine ceasefire. How this plays out could affect US standing and future election narratives.
For Russia, the stakes are straightforward. If the plan is accepted even partly, Moscow would legitimize its annexations. Its army could claim victory in taking land. And the lifting of sanctions (or reintegration into the West economically) would mark a triumphant return for Putin after years of isolation. That could embolden Russia on other fronts.
Meanwhile, millions of civilians on both sides await relief. Eastern Ukrainians risk being under new Russian rule. Ukrainians inside Russia face an uncertain future. A shaky peace could mean more refugees and unrest. A strong plan might finally stop the bloodshed.
NATO cohesion: Forcing Ukraine to abandon NATO hopes could fracture Western unity and encourage other powers to challenge alliances.
International norms: Accepting territorial changes by force would undermine the long-held rule that borders can’t be seized through invasion.
US credibility: If America is seen as pushing a plan that looks pro-Russian, allies may question its leadership and reliability.
Russian gains: Russia stands to secure many of its war aims – if it succeeds, it may use this victory to pursue further regional ambitions.
Future peace frameworks: The way this deal is negotiated will set a template. A fair, balanced outcome could foster stability; a one-sided deal might leave lasting resentment and spark future conflicts.
Impacts
Front-line sacrifices: In villages battered by war, every decision feels personal. Ukrainian fighters in the east report losing hundreds of men in recent months. One commander described Ukrainian defenses as trenches of blood and steel. He asked why they were sending soldiers to die “just to give [that ground] away.” For families, every name on a memorial could become a rallying cry against any terms that hand Russia fresh territory.
Leadership statements: President Zelensky has been emphatic that Ukraine must not be rushed into a surrender. He posted on social media that “diplomacy has been activated” in Geneva – but only acceptable solutions will do. He also announced Ukraine’s own peace team, led by his chief of staff, to shape any talks. Meanwhile, Western leaders at the Johannesburg summit spoke on Ukraine’s behalf: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer praised key parts of the draft (like Ukrainian sovereignty) but echoed others that “more needs to be done.” Macron said bluntly that Europe needs a settlement “good for Ukrainians.” German Chancellor Merz warned that “we are still very far” from a deal. Each statement underscores that the world is pressing for a negotiated end – but not at Ukraine’s expense.
Geneva diplomacy: In the elegant halls of a Geneva hotel, backroom talks are underway. The US team includes Secretary of State Rubio and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff. Ukraine is represented by Andriy Yermak and other senior aides. National security advisers from Britain (Jonathan Powell), France, Germany and others sit in as well. They meet in small groups and bilaterally, away from cameras. Their work is urgent: crafting a document that all sides can accept as a basis for peace. Officials have emphasized that privacy is key – indicating how sensitive the revisions are. In public, they only say the meetings are “constructive,” but cameras and reporters wait outside each day for any sign of breakthrough.
On-the-ground reality: Outside the talking rooms, the war does not pause. In the past week, a Russian missile strike leveled apartment blocks in western Ukraine, killing civilians, including children. Russia blamed a Ukrainian strike on one of its own power stations. Both sides launched drones and bombs overnight with little warning. Each day of violence underscores what’s at stake. In Kyiv, civilians followed the news with weary eyes. They know that a peace deal could end such attacks – or they fear that a bad deal might not.
These examples remind us: the issues in Geneva are not abstract. They affect real people. Soldiers on the front line, leaders in strategy rooms, and families in bomb shelters – all have a stake. Geneva’s fresh talks, and the US insistence it authored the plan, are the latest chapter in a brutal conflict. What happens next will echo far beyond these summit rooms. A balanced resolution could save lives and stabilize Europe. A flawed deal could leave peace unfinished and open the door to new dangers.
The world will be watching how the dust settles after this weekend’s negotiations. Whatever comes out of Geneva, the debate over the 28-point plan – its content and authorship – is far from over. But one thing is clear: the decisions being made now in halls of diplomacy could decide whether millions see peace or continued war.
