Trump’s Ukraine peace plan: What the revised proposal really means for the war

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan: What the revised proposal really means for the war

The Trump administration’s latest attempt at ending the war in Ukraine landed with unusual force. The 28-point proposal, revealed last week, drew immediate criticism across European capitals and in Kyiv for reading like a list of Russian demands rather than a balanced peace framework. Even within Washington’s foreign-policy circles, the document was described as one of the administration’s most lopsided diplomatic efforts. Since then, US officials have tried to frame the plan as unfinished, promising that it remains open to revision, the New York Times reported.

A year of stalled efforts

This push is only the latest step in a long, uneven year of Trump-led diplomacy. The president has maintained regular contact with Vladimir Putin, logging multiple phone calls since taking office. His envoy, developer Steve Witkoff, has met the Russian leader several times, including a high-profile summit in Alaska. Those meetings produced photographs and speculation but no real progress. The Gaza negotiations in October changed that mood inside the West Wing. After that agreement was reached, Jared Kushner and Witkoff urged Trump to try one more round of Ukraine diplomacy, arguing that momentum might carry over.

How the proposal took shape

The plan’s origins stretch back to a series of quiet, separate meetings in Miami and later in Europe. Kirill Dmitriev, a long-time Kremlin economic adviser, met Kushner and Witkoff to outline Russia’s preferred terms. Shortly afterward, the two met Rustem Umerov, a senior Ukrainian official who had handled delicate talks in the early months of the war. Each side spent roughly six hours presenting its red lines. From those discussions, Witkoff and Kushner drafted the initial 28-point framework. Although US officials insist Kyiv was consulted, Ukrainian politicians reacted with anger once the plan became public, describing it as a pathway to forced capitulation.

The revisions after Geneva

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has tried to portray the proposal as a “living document.” Over the weekend, US and Ukrainian officials held two days of talks in Geneva. When the meetings ended, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that several of the most contentious clauses had been removed or rewritten. Points that would have capped Ukraine’s military at 600,000 troops, barred NATO personnel from the country, and required Kyiv to surrender occupied territory were softened. The White House confirmed those changes indirectly, saying that Ukraine’s objections had been taken seriously even if that made the proposal harder for Russia to accept.

The looming question: Will Moscow engage?

With each revision to accommodate Ukraine, the odds of Russian acceptance drop. Even the original plan, widely seen as tilted toward the Kremlin, went further than Putin’s negotiators had previously requested. Moscow had pushed for a much smaller Ukrainian army during talks in 2022, suggesting a cap of 100,000 troops. The updated proposal still gives Ukraine considerably more room to manoeuvre. Rubio has acknowledged that Russia “gets a vote,” and diplomats expect Moscow to study the new version before signalling whether discussions can continue.

Deadlines and shifting expectations

Trump initially set a Thanksgiving deadline for Ukraine to endorse the plan, but the administration is already distancing itself from that date. Officials now say the president wants rapid movement but understands the complexities involved. Zelensky has said he will raise “sensitive issues” directly with Trump, though the timing of that conversation is unclear. What remains certain is that neither side views the early draft as a final map to peace.

Has this renewed diplomacy changed anything?

Despite the uproar, some analysts argue that Trump’s intervention has forced governments to engage more seriously with the idea of a negotiated end to the war. The proposal, even in its flawed form, reopened questions many leaders had quietly set aside in recent months. Critics still worry that pressure from Washington may push Ukraine toward unwelcome concessions, but supporters say any diplomatic opening is better than stalemate. As one veteran analyst noted, the plan has at least revived a conversation that had been dormant since midsummer. Whether it leads to a settlement — or simply fades like earlier initiatives — depends on decisions still being made in Washington, Kyiv and Moscow.