As the war between Russia and Ukraine drags on, with the latest conflict reaching its 4-year mark, an abrupt “peace plan” appeared out of nowhere.
This “28-point peace plan” was drafted in back-channels between the US and Russia, and was then presented to the rest of the world with a deadline.
What is inside the document is already controversial, but what the document actually represents is even more provoking.
The “peace plan” reveals how power sits in the West, it reveals Russia’s perspective after close to 4 years of war, and how the foundations of European security are being tested.
Most readers have seen fragments of the plan. What matters now is the full picture.
How did this plan appear, and who wrote it?
The origins of the document are unusual because they sit outside normal diplomacy.
There was no UN process, no formal negotiation track, and no public mandate from any Western ally.
Instead, the “peace plan” was drafted by two men with no experience in arms control or European security.
On the American side stands Steve Witkoff, a real-estate developer close to Donald Trump.
On the Russian side is Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, who has long acted as a business intermediary for the Kremlin.
The two met repeatedly this year, at a time when Russia was searching for a political exit that did not look like a defeat, and when the Trump administration was clearly looking for a faster way to settle the conflict.
The document they produced was presented to Ukrainian officials last week by senior US military and political envoys.
They told Kyiv that Washington wanted an answer by Thanksgiving. If Ukraine refuses, then US military and intelligence support might stop.
According to reports, Europe was not informed in advance.
Several EU governments learned about the plan from press leaks rather than direct communication.
By the time European leaders were briefed, the draft had already been shown to Ukraine and was being treated by Washington as the starting point for negotiations.
Naturally, the reaction from European capitals was immediate shock.
Many still remember the hurried diplomacy before Trump’s summer meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
Back then, they tried to insert their own concerns at the last minute. This time, they weren’t even in the room.
What the plan demands from Ukraine
The plan’s most visible feature is the map it draws. Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk would be recognised as “de facto Russian” by the United States.
Russia would also keep the territory it holds in the southern regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, locked in place along the current front.
Ukraine would withdraw from the fortified section of Donetsk that it still defends.
These concessions give Russia territory that its army has not been able to capture after years of fighting.
They also open central Ukraine to future attack by removing the defensive lines Ukraine built at heavy cost.
The political conditions cut even deeper. Ukraine would be required to write permanent neutrality into its constitution, which means NATO membership would be off the table forever.
Ukraine’s armed forces would also be capped at 600,000 troops, a reduction from current wartime levels, with no foreign soldiers to be allowed to set foot in the country.
Ukraine would then have to hold new national elections in 100 days, even though millions of citizens are displaced and parts of the country remain under occupation.
Nothing similar is required of Russia, which has not held a competitive national vote in decades.
The text claims that Ukraine would receive security guarantees in exchange for these concessions, though these guarantees are not defined.
The only specific clause is that if Ukraine fires a missile into Russia “without cause”, the guarantee is cancelled.
That is an unusual clause for any treaty, and experts point out how easily it could be manipulated.
Taken together, these terms leave Ukraine with less control over its security and political life than it had before the war started.
What Russia gets without asking
Russia receives several major gains from the plan. The first is recognition of territorial control that Moscow has never received from the West.
The second is the loosening of the international isolation imposed after the invasion.
The plan states that Russia would be gradually reintegrated into the global financial system.
Sanctions would be lifted in stages, and Russia would be invited back into the G8.
There would be new joint ventures in energy, infrastructure, Arctic minerals, data centers, and other sectors that have long been priorities for the Kremlin.
None of the clauses requires Russia to reduce its troop levels, dismantle military positions near Ukraine, or acknowledge responsibility for war crimes in occupied territories.
Russia only needs to sign a law promising “non-aggression,” a symbolic gesture rather than a binding constraint.
Moscow has violated similar promises before, including those it made in the 1990s to guarantee Ukraine’s borders.
The plan therefore, gives Russia territorial recognition, economic re-entr,y and a stronger strategic position than it currently holds.
In exchange, it offers very little that could permanently prevent a renewed attack.
Why the economic chapter shocked Europe
The economic section is one of the least discussed yet most revealing parts of the document.
It calls for $100 billion of frozen Russian assets to be placed under US management for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Europe would contribute another $100 billion from its own funds.
The United States would keep half of the profits from these investments.
The remainder of Russia’s frozen assets would be used for US-Russia corporate projects.
This structure leaves Europe with the largest financial burden while giving the United States and Russia control over the most lucrative elements.
European governments hold most of the frozen Russian assets and have funded most of Ukraine’s budget during the war.
Even so, the plan gives them a limited say over where the money goes.
This is why many European leaders privately describe the document as not only a political deal but also a commercial arrangement.
Latest developments and the next chapter
In the days after the plan surfaced, diplomacy moved at a pace not seen since the start of the war.
European leaders rushed to Johannesburg for the G20, where they confronted the United States and made it clear that the draft “needs additional work.”
Their message was aimed not only at Washington but at buying Ukraine time.
The EU, UK, Canada, and Japan objected to the troop cap, the territorial concessions, and the idea that Ukraine’s borders could be rewritten behind closed doors.
Talks then continued in Geneva over the weekend, where a US delegation led by Marco Rubio and Ukraine’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak held what both sides called their most constructive meeting yet.
Rubio indicated that the hard Thanksgiving deadline is now flexible, and an updated draft framework has begun taking shape.
Zelenskiy is not yet convinced, thanking the US while insisting that any agreement must protect “Ukrainian dignity.”
Backed by European advisers, Kyiv has already prepared a counter-proposal removing the most damaging terms.
The next chapter depends on whether Washington softens the core demands, how far Europe pushes its objections, and whether Kyiv can secure the safeguards it needs to survive any future peace.
The post The controversial Russia – Ukraine “peace plan” explained. What’s next for the war? appeared first on Invezz