Ukraine has delivered a revised 20-point peace proposal to the Trump administration, the product of intensive consultations with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The framework arrives amid mounting U.S. pressure for a swift resolution and represents Kyiv's attempt to navigate between Washington's appetite for a rapid deal and European determination to prevent legitimizing territorial conquest. Even as diplomats parse the text, Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure continue, underscoring the fragility of any settlement premised on goodwill rather than enforceable guarantees.
The revised proposal sits at the center of a three-track negotiation covering the ceasefire framework, security guarantees, and economic recovery. What began as a U.S.-drafted, Russian-backed 28-point plan has been winnowed down after meetings in Kyiv and Moscow, with European capitals actively shaping edits to avoid codifying outcomes that reward aggression. The core tension is structural: whether the framework will implicitly or explicitly concede parts of Donbas and freeze control in Zaporizhzhia, and whether the security guarantees offered in exchange will carry credible enforcement mechanisms or collapse into vague assurances.
What's in the 20 points—and what's disputed
According to European diplomats familiar with the draft, the revised framework includes a demilitarized zone along the current line of contact, security guarantees "in line with NATO's Article 5" as a standard to approximate, a pathway to EU membership by 2027, and provision for elections in Ukraine if security conditions can be ensured. Crucially, language explicitly barring NATO membership—present in earlier U.S. drafts—has been removed; the text is now silent on the issue, though Russia continues to signal that any NATO pathway remains unacceptable.
The framework also addresses controversial elements from earlier U.S. proposals that triggered European alarm. The original 28-point U.S. proposal included an investment scheme for Ukraine's reconstruction controlled by the U.S. but financed by $100 billion in frozen Russian assets matched by another $100 billion from the European Union, with 50% of profits sent to Washington. After intense discussions between Washington, Berlin, Paris, London, and the European Commission, this investment scheme has been removed from the revised draft. The EU is now considering using interest generated by frozen Russian assets to fund loans to Ukraine instead. Another contentious provision discussed earlier involved a personnel cap on Ukraine's armed forces, now discussed at 800,000 troops versus an earlier 600,000 ceiling. Ukrainian officials have pushed back hard on all such proposals, and European diplomats have rewritten the plan to insert tougher sovereignty protections and higher force limits.
President Zelensky has stated he is willing to discuss elections within 60 to 90 days if security can be guaranteed and Ukraine's legal framework—which currently prohibits balloting under martial law—is adapted. Both the Kremlin and President Trump have called for elections, framing them as a test of legitimacy. Under current Ukrainian law, Zelensky's term remains valid during martial law, and polling shows Ukrainians have not prioritized elections while their country remains under occupation and regular bombardment.
Members are reading: Why a demilitarized zone without enforcement mechanisms risks permanently freezing territorial conquest under the guise of stabilization.
Russian red lines and the credibility problem
Moscow's position remains clear and unyielding. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov praised President Trump's "genuine attempts" at diplomacy and claimed that misunderstandings with Washington have been "eliminated" after recent talks. Yet Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the concept of an "energy truce," insisting Russia is working toward "peace, not a ceasefire," and reiterated that NATO membership for Ukraine is unacceptable and that any security guarantees must include Russia itself. The continued drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure—both sides report large-scale aerial activity—underscore doubts about Russia's intent to settle on terms that fall short of its maximalist demands.
The Trump administration's new national security strategy seeks to "reestablish strategic stability with Russia," a posture Moscow has praised and European capitals read as downgrading allied preferences in favor of bilateral accommodation. This policy backdrop explains U.S. pressure for speed and the earlier draft provisions on territorial recognition and asset control. For European leaders, the "critical moment" Merz, Macron, and Starmer identified is not just about Ukraine—it is about whether the post-1945 prohibition on changing borders by force will hold or collapse into a transactional great-power bargain.
What to watch
The immediate test is whether Washington will drop or dilute the language on formal recognition of occupied territory and whether the final framework includes the detailed monitoring and enforcement annexes Europe is demanding. European coordination on guarantees—potentially including troop contributions, prepositioned equipment, and financial commitments tied to compliance—will determine whether "in line with Article 5" becomes a credible deterrent or a fig leaf. Russia's next moves will signal whether Moscow sees diplomatic engagement as a path to settlement or as cover for consolidation. Until those questions are answered, the 20-point plan remains a framework for negotiation, not a foundation for peace.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
