Geopolitical Assessment of the 28-Point U.S. Draft Peace Plan: Strategic Alignment with Russian Interests vs. Ukrainian Sovereignty

I. Executive Summary: The Structural Bias of the Draft

The analysis of the reported 28-point U.S. draft peace plan for the Russia-Ukraine conflict indicates a profound structural asymmetry that favors the long-term strategic and geopolitical interests of the Russian Federation. While ostensibly designed to end hostilities, the provisions achieve several core Russian objectives—territorial recognition, security neutralization, impunity for aggression, and economic rehabilitation—by demanding irreversible, existential security, territorial, and judicial concessions from Ukraine.

The central conclusion is that the draft plan fundamentally validates the use of military aggression and territorial conquest as acceptable means of achieving geopolitical ends, establishing a highly dangerous international precedent that contravenes the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter concerning the inviolability of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Key findings underscore this structural bias:

1. Territorial Rewarding: Russia secures de facto recognition of territory gained through force, including strategic military assets—most notably, the critically important "fortress belt"—that Russian forces had previously failed to conquer through sustained combat operations.1

2. Security Neutralization: Ukraine is forced to accept binding, structural limitations on its sovereign right to self-defense, including a constitutional prohibition on NATO membership and a significant reduction in military capacity, in exchange for aspirational, non-binding security commitments from Russia.3

3. Impunity for Aggression: A sweeping, blanket amnesty clause is included, which attempts to neutralize international justice mechanisms and extinguishes accountability for war crimes and the foundational crime of aggression, providing a complete judicial victory for Moscow.1

4. Unilateral Enforcement and Economic Coercion: The proposed "Peace Council," headed by a non-state actor with sanctioning power, generates severe legal and international friction, particularly with key European allies. Furthermore, the overall financial architecture is weighted toward offering incentives and economic rehabilitation to Russia while providing leverage for asymmetrical punitive action against the significantly weaker Ukrainian state.6

Ukrainian officials recognize the severity of the document, facing a high-stakes calculation where rejection risks "losing a key partner" (the United States), despite the necessity of accepting "painful concessions" that compromise the nation's dignity and future security.8

II. The Geopolitical Redrawing of Territory and Military Advantage (Pillar 1)

The most tangible evidence of the plan’s pro-Russian alignment is found in its territorial provisions, which mandate significant concessions by Ukraine that reward Russia’s invasion with strategic land gains and geopolitical codification.

A. The Cession of Conquered and Unconquered Territory

The draft proposes recognizing the Ukrainian oblasts of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk as de facto Russian territory by the U.S. and other signatories.3 This clause represents the formal diplomatic codification of Russia's conquests since 2014, fulfilling a primary Russian geopolitical objective to have its annexations recognized internationally. Ukraine would be required to yield a substantial swathe of eastern territory.4

Furthermore, the proposal moves beyond merely freezing the existing lines of contact. It mandates that Ukraine surrender territory currently under its operational control. The draft forces Ukraine to abandon all of Donetsk province, even though approximately 14% of the region remained in Ukrainian hands at the time of the draft’s circulation.3 This requirement compels Kyiv to voluntarily surrender land that its forces had successfully defended, providing Russia with military objectives it had previously failed to seize through prolonged, costly fighting.11

Regarding the southern front, the conflict would be frozen at the existing front lines in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.3 This freeze ensures that Russia retains control of strategically vital infrastructure and population centers, such as Mariupol, and secures the crucial land bridge connecting Russia proper to the Crimean Peninsula, which was illegally annexed in 2014.3

B. Strategic Catastrophe: The Abandonment of the Fortress Belt

The requirement to cede Ukrainian-controlled portions of Donetsk Oblast has severe long-term military implications. The ceded territory includes Ukraine’s critically important "fortress belt"—a complex, entrenched defensive system encompassing trenches, anti-tank obstacles, bunkers, and minefields developed since 2014.2 These defenses represent the main logistical and defense industrial line protecting Ukraine’s deeper rear areas.

The structural implication of losing the fortress belt is catastrophic for Ukrainian strategic depth. Russian forces have demonstrated that rapidly penetrating these defensive lines is extremely challenging, requiring years of bloody struggle at the current rate of advance.2 By compelling Ukraine to abandon these fortifications, the plan rewards Russia with a substantial military advantage without any operational cost. This surrender would leave Ukrainian defenses "perilously weakened".1 The Donbas is geopolitically significant not only for its resources but also as a "springboard for a future new offensive".12 Ceding this critical infrastructure ensures that any subsequent Russian aggression would begin from a substantially superior forward operating base, permanently compromising Ukraine’s ability to defend its eastern territories and opening a clear path for future Russian operations toward Kyiv.1

C. Control of Critical Infrastructure and Cultural Coercion

Beyond territorial losses, the plan grants Russia leverage over Ukraine's long-term economic and cultural stability. The proposal stipulates that Russia will gain control over 50% of the energy output generated by the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, subject to IAEA oversight.13 This introduces Russian influence into Ukraine's critical energy sector. The loss of industrial Donbas territory also complicates control and access to vital hydrological systems, which have been severely damaged by years of conflict and are essential for regional stability.14

Furthermore, the plan includes maximalist demands aimed at the forced Russification of Ukrainian identity, requiring Kyiv to recognize Russian as an official state language and grant formal status to the Russian Orthodox Church.11 These cultural provisions compromise Ukraine's state sovereignty and internal cohesion, mirroring long-standing Kremlin objectives to undermine Ukrainian national identity.

III. Strategic Asymmetry and Military Neutralization (Pillar 2)

The security provisions embedded within the 28-point plan establish a profound and legally binding asymmetry in military capacity and sovereign rights, effectively neutralizing Ukraine as a long-term geopolitical and military threat to Russia.

A. Severe and Binding Constraints on Ukrainian Sovereignty

The provisions demand significant and verifiable limitations on Ukraine’s sovereign authority:

1. NATO Prohibition: Ukraine must modify its constitution to permanently rule out joining the 32-nation NATO alliance.3 This concession fulfills Russia’s fundamental security demand for Ukrainian neutrality, achieving a core war aim without requiring Russia to make equivalent, verifiable security concessions.

2. Military Force Cap: Ukraine is mandated to cap the size of its armed forces at 600,000 troops.3 This figure requires a forced reduction of approximately 280,000 personnel from its current fighting strength of roughly 880,000.3 Ukraine had previously resisted suggestions to limit the size of its military.15

3. Weaponry Restrictions: The agreement also mandates that Ukraine reduce or altogether abandon certain types of weaponry, particularly long-range missiles capable of striking targets within Russia.11 Additionally, NATO troops cannot be stationed in Ukraine, and Kyiv must commit to remaining a non-nuclear state.15 These combined measures dismantle Ukraine’s ability to project deterrence or secure meaningful external military guarantees against future aggression.

B. The Absence of Meaningful Constraints on Russia

In stark contrast to the structural limitations placed upon Ukraine, the aggressor state, Russia, faces negligible constraints on its military power or strategic planning. The only reported military restrictions placed upon Russia are rhetorical or internal in nature.

The plan states only that "it is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries”.4 This "expectation" is an aspirational commitment devoid of enforcement mechanisms or specific punitive consequences. Furthermore, Russia would enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Ukraine and Europe into its domestic law.17 While a diplomatic gesture, domestic law is a unilateral, internally reversible commitment that carries insignificant international legal weight, particularly when weighed against Ukraine’s mandated constitutional alteration and troop reduction. Crucially, Russia faces no corresponding cap on the size of its conventional forces or restrictions on its nuclear arsenal, ensuring that its permanent military superiority remains unchallenged.

This arrangement institutionalizes Ukrainian vulnerability. Ukraine accepts legally binding, verifiable, and structural limitations on its sovereign right to self-defense 3, while Russia offers only non-binding assurances and internal decrees. This disproportionate structure ensures Russia achieves its long-term strategic goal of neutralizing Ukraine as a security threat without incurring substantial reciprocal costs.

The following table summarizes the asymmetric security landscape created by the draft plan:

Table 1: Asymmetric Security Provisions and Concessions

IV. The Legalization of Impunity and Undermining Accountability (Pillar 3)

The provision concerning amnesty represents a fundamental challenge to the post-war architecture of international justice and human rights accountability, entirely serving the interests of the Russian state by immunizing its personnel from prosecution.

A. The Breadth and Legal Implications of the Full Amnesty Clause

Point 26 of the draft plan grants "full amnesty for their actions during the war" to "All parties involved in this conflict".5 This language is expansive, covering not only military actions but potentially systemic, organized atrocities committed by state actors.

This clause directly conflicts with the ongoing international and domestic efforts to ensure accountability for the widespread atrocities committed during the conflict. Ukraine has invested significant resources into documenting and pursuing justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity.19 Parallel international mechanisms, such as the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, have been actively investigating violations of international humanitarian law.20

Most critically, the blanket amnesty clause directly undermines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has been investigating allegations of crimes committed in Ukraine since 2013 and has issued existing arrest warrants against high-ranking Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, for the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.20 An agreement granting full amnesty attempts to extinguish the legal basis for these prosecutions, granting Russia an unprecedented judicial victory.

B. The Erosion of Peremptory Norms and Deterrence Failure

From an international legal perspective, the inclusion of a blanket amnesty for mass atrocities undermines jus cogens (peremptory norms of international law) against genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. There is a strong consensus among legal analysts that states cannot grant effective amnesty for systemic international crimes.

The strategic rationale behind this provision demonstrates a deliberate decision to prioritize a rapid, transactional cessation of hostilities over the pursuit of justice and accountability. This choice serves Moscow's interests by securing guaranteed impunity for its military and political leadership, thereby removing the profound political and legal risk associated with future war crimes trials.19 Legal experts caution that "dangling such an amnesty is a virtual invitation to more atrocities".1 Such a provision severely damages the international community's capacity for deterrence by ensuring that perpetrators of systematic crimes face no individual responsibility, thereby legalizing the conduct of the war through diplomatic negotiation.

Table 2: Legal and Judicial Implications of Key Provisions

| Plan Provision | International Law/Justice Implication | Alignment Bias | Source Snippets |

|---|---|---|

| Full Amnesty (Point 26) | Undermines ICC jurisdiction and accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression (jus cogens norms). | Strongly Pro-Russia (Protects perpetrators). | 1 |

| Sanction Lift on Russia | Gradual removal of international punitive measures tied to the 2022 invasion and 2014 annexation. | Strongly Pro-Russia (Rehabilitation and economic reward). | 10 |

| Peace Council Chair | Legal uncertainty regarding a non-state actor wielding executive sanctioning power internationally. | Pro-Unilateral US Control (Bypasses established multilateral frameworks). | 16 |

| Non-Aggression Law | Reliance on internal Russian legislation (reversible) rather than verifiable international security guarantees. | Pro-Russia (Rhetorical concession with no structural cost). | 16 |

V. The Peace Council, Financial Incentives, and Unconventional Enforcement (Pillar 4)

The mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing the peace agreement are structurally unconventional, creating legal complexities, generating international friction, and establishing a system of asymmetrical coercion.

A. The Structure and Legality of the Peace Council

The plan states that the agreement will be legally binding and its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a "Peace Council," headed by President Donald J. Trump, who is granted the authority to impose sanctions for violations.5

This enforcement structure presents significant issues in international law. Sanctioning authority—the power to impose restrictions on states and individuals that carry legal weight—is conventionally reserved for sovereign governments, often acting through specialized executive branches, or powerful multilateral bodies, primarily the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII resolutions.21 Delegating the power to impose international sanctions to a specific individual outside of conventional state or multilateral institutional frameworks raises profound questions about the Council’s legitimacy and operational effectiveness.

The unprecedented centralization of enforcement in a body chaired by a single non-state actor makes the entire compliance mechanism highly vulnerable to personal political motivations and instability. Given the devastating humanitarian effects that international sanctions can impose on civilian populations 24, the lack of institutional safeguards, due process, and multilateral accountability within the Peace Council structure represents a systemic risk to the treaty’s impartial application, particularly concerning the weaker state party, Ukraine.

B. The Financial Architecture: Rewards for Russia and Discord with Europe

The financial provisions of the plan are designed to offer massive economic incentives for Russian compliance while simultaneously creating profound divisions among Ukraine's Western partners.

1. Russian Economic Rehabilitation: The draft proposes major rewards for Russia, including the gradual lifting of all sanctions imposed since the 2014 annexation and its return to what was formerly known as the Group of Eight (G8).3 These steps would normalize Russia’s geopolitical standing and revitalize its economy, effectively dismantling the unified Western punitive strategy established in response to the aggression.

2. The Frozen Assets Controversy: The plan outlines a controversial mechanism for leveraging frozen Russian assets. It suggests that approximately $100 billion in frozen Russian assets would be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. Crucially, the draft specifies that the United States would receive 50% of the profits from this venture.13 Europe would be expected to contribute an additional $100 billion.3

The demand for a 50% profit share on frozen Russian state assets, most of which are held within European clearinghouses like Euroclear in Belgium (totaling around €140 billion), triggered outrage among European officials.7 European leaders were reportedly "blindsided" and not involved in the drafting process.26 This unilateral financial demand challenges the economic sovereignty of EU member states and risks fracturing the unified Western coalition, a secondary strategic victory for Russia achieved through the structure of the financial mechanism itself.7

C. The Mechanism of Coercion against Kyiv

The enforcement architecture exhibits clear bias toward Russia. The agreement is explicitly structured to work through "incentives and carrots with Moscow, instead of sticks and punishment in case of violation".6 Conversely, the threat of sanctions is strategically deployed against Ukraine. Potential violations by Kyiv could result in the loss of critical U.S. support, including intelligence sharing and weapons sales.6

This arrangement grants the Peace Council and its chair significant, asymmetrical leverage to impose punitive measures disproportionately on Ukraine if Kyiv were to resist subsequent unfavorable interpretations of the deal or attempts to revisit specific provisions. The consequence of structural enforcement pressure is that Kyiv is placed in a position where violating the terms risks existential security isolation, while Moscow is financially rewarded and minimally constrained.

Table 3: Financial Incentives and International Friction

| Financial Mechanism | Recipient/Primary Beneficiary | Strategic Function in Peace Plan | Source Snippets |

|---|---|---|

| Lifting Sanctions / G8 Return | Russia (Economic rehabilitation). | Major political reward for signing the agreement; restores pre-2014 status. | 3 |

| Frozen Russian Assets ($100B use) | US-led reconstruction effort in Ukraine. | Incentive for US leadership; creates a US-controlled mechanism for funds. | 3 |

| US Profit Claim (50%) | United States (Commercial/Treasury interest). | Source of severe Transatlantic discord; ties enforcement to US commercial gain. | 7 |

| Joint U.S.-Russia Investment Fund | U.S. and Russia (Mutual economic interest). | Further binds Russia to the agreement through shared economic benefit derived from remaining frozen assets. | 3 |

VI. Conclusion: Strategic Risk Analysis and Alignment Assessment

The reported provisions of the 28-point plan fundamentally align with the strategic interests of the Russian Federation, achieving maximalist geopolitical goals—control over territory, neutralization of a Western-aligned adversary, and judicial immunity—in exchange for halting a war that Russia had failed to win decisively. The elements compromise the core tenets of supporting Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty, which are predicated on territorial integrity, the right to self-defense, and accountability for human rights violations.

A. Final Strategic Alignment and Risk Profile

The structural concessions demanded of Ukraine—irrevocable constitutional changes, mandatory military disarmament, and the abandonment of critical defensive infrastructure—ensure Ukraine’s perpetual vulnerability. Conversely, the rewards offered to Russia—territorial codification, normalization of relations, and sanction relief—serve as profound validation of its aggressive foreign policy.

The plan introduces three major systemic risks to the international order:

1. Legitimizing Conquest: By forcing the formal or de facto cession of Ukrainian land, the agreement violates the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force, thereby legitimizing Russia's aggression and undermining the post-1945 international rule of law.

2. Institutionalizing Impunity: The blanket amnesty nullifies global accountability efforts, setting a damaging precedent that Great Powers can use conflict and subsequent negotiations to circumvent justice for systematic war crimes.

3. Guaranteeing Future Aggression: By creating a security landscape where Ukraine is demilitarized (capped forces, restricted weaponry) and stripped of its primary defensive line (the fortress belt), the plan creates conditions that guarantee Ukraine’s long-term inability to deter renewed Russian military action, making future conflict highly probable.

B. Stakeholder Calculus

The differing reactions confirm the plan’s bias. While Russian President Vladimir Putin stated the proposal "could form the basis" of a permanent peace, reflecting its substantial concessions 8, official Ukrainian reactions acknowledge the dilemma. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned the nation faced a "very difficult choice, either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner".8

This situation reveals that the negotiation occurs under conditions of implicit coercion, where Kyiv, despite its clear opposition to ceding territory ("Our land is not for sale" 4), feels compelled to engage with the framework to avoid a complete break with the United States, its most critical ally. The alienation of European partners, evidenced by the outrage over the unilateral drafting and the financial claims on frozen assets, further destabilizes the coalition supporting Ukraine, compounding Kyiv’s diplomatic isolation and maximizing the strategic gain for Moscow.7

Works cited

1. Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is a gift to Putin, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/22/trump-ukraine-peace-plan-gift-to-putin

2. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 19, 2025 | ISW, accessed November 22, 2025, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-19-2025/

3. Here's what's in the Trump administration's proposed 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-proposed-28-point-russia-ukraine-peace-plan/

4. What we know about the leaked US draft plan for ending Russia’s Ukraine war, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/ukraine-us-draft-plan-russia-what-we-know-5483846

5. Read full text of Trump's peace plan to end Ukraine – Russia war, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/read-full-text-of-trumps-28-point-ukraine-russia-peace-plan-glbs-2823500-2025-11-21

6. Is Trump’s Ukraine Peace Deal a Faustian Bargain?, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/trumps-ukraine-peace-deal-faustian-bargain

7. “Witkoff Needs to See a Psychiatrist”: EU Officials Reject Trump's Frozen Assets Plan, accessed November 22, 2025, https://united24media.com/latest-news/witkoff-needs-to-see-a-psychiatrist-eu-officials-reject-trumps-frozen-assets-plan-13677

8. Ukraine-Russia conflict: Putin welcomes US peace plan as 'final settlement'; Trump urges Zelenskyy to respond, accessed November 22, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/ukraine-russia-conflict-putin-welcomes-us-peace-plan-as-final-settlement-trump-urges-zelenskyy-to-respond/articleshow/125494648.cms

9. US plan for Ukraine needs ‘additional work’, say Kyiv’s allies at G20 summit – as it happened, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/nov/22/russia-ukraine-war-trump-peace-plan-g20-zelenskyy-putin-europe-latest-news-updates

10. Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in draft of Trump peace plan obtained by AP, accessed November 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-peace-plan-europe-witkoff-33545b140c5bfbbc5e9061a739802e54

11. What do we know about the reported US-Russian plan to end the Ukraine war?, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/20/us-russia-reportedly-draft-plan-end-ukraine-war-zelenskyy

12. Here's Why Russia's Vladimir Putin Is Fixated On Ukraine's Donbas - Radio Free Europe, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-war-putin/33564948.html

13. New “peace plan” offers Ukraine almost no concessions compared with Istanbul draft, but adds multiple new demands - The Insider, accessed November 22, 2025, https://theins.ru/en/news/287079

14. Water in the War in Ukraine: between mobilization and collapse - La Vie des idées, accessed November 22, 2025, https://laviedesidees.fr/Water-in-the-War-in-Ukraine-between-mobilization-and-collapse

15. What's in the U.S. peace plan for ending the war in Ukraine?, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/11/22/world/us-ukraine-peace-plan-draft-explainer/

16. Trump is pushing new peace plan for Ukraine. Here’s what it includes, accessed November 22, 2025, https://globalnews.ca/news/11537323/ukraine-russia-peace-plan-trump-details/

17. Ukraine war latest: Peace plan not final offer, Trump says - as he calls Starmer ahead of Geneva talks, accessed November 22, 2025, https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-trumps-peace-plan-revealed-in-full-but-zelenskyy-says-his-team-must-check-its-genuine-12541713

18. Trump's 28-point Ukraine plan - Euractiv, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.euractiv.com/news/trumps-28-point-ukraine-plan/

19. Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Has Options in Response to Latest U.S.-Russian ‘Peace Plan’, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/125365/ukraine-us-russia-peace-plan-options/

20. Transitional Justice in the Context of the War in Ukraine - Groupe d'études géopolitiques, accessed November 22, 2025, https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/transitional-justice-in-the-context-of-the-war-in-ukraine/

21. Legality of Unilateral Extra-territorial Sanctions under International Law - Oxford Academic, accessed November 22, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/27/1/53/6528963

22. Sanctions of the Security Council Against Individuals – Some Human Rights Problems Noah Birkhäuser - European Society of International Law, accessed November 22, 2025, https://esil-sedi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Birkhauser.pdf

23. Safeguarding Humanitarian Action in Sanctions Regimes - International Peace Institute, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/1906_Sanctions-and-Humanitarian-Action.pdf

24. Economic sanctions on countries are indiscriminate weapons and should be banned - NIH, accessed November 22, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8679062/

25. 'Painful concessions': Zelenskyy on Donald Trump's 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan; what's proposed, accessed November 22, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/painful-concessions-zelenskyy-on-donald-trumps-28-point-russia-ukraine-peace-plan-whats-proposed/articleshow/125486086.cms

26. U.S. and Russia have reportedly drawn up a plan for Ukraine. EU leaders say they and Kyiv must be involved, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-and-russia-have-reportedly-drawn-up-a-plan-for-ukraine-eu-leaders-say-they-and-kyiv-must-be-involved

27. US tells Nato if Zelenskyy does not sign peace deal Ukraine will face worse in future, accessed November 22, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/22/ukraine-zelenskyy-peace-deal-us-nato-meeting

28. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 21, 2025, accessed November 22, 2025, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-21-2025/