Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner landed in Moscow today to brief President Vladimir Putin on a revised American peace proposal, marking the first direct Kremlin contact with a framework that has undergone rapid edits since early drafts triggered alarm in Kyiv and European capitals. The pair arrives with a slimmed-down plan—reportedly whittled from twenty-eight points to nineteen—and a narrower agenda: can Washington broker a ceasefire that both sides will sign and credibly enforce?
The meeting follows weekend coordination in Florida, where Witkoff, Kushner, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Ukrainian national security chief Rustem Umerov to refine the text. Rubio called the session "productive," signaling alignment on core language, but the Kremlin has already made clear it views the proposal as requiring "serious analysis" and that detailed negotiations have not begun. What matters in Moscow is not ceremony but substance: where a ceasefire line would freeze territorial control, and whether the security architecture behind it can prevent the next war.
The draft's metamorphosis
The original twenty-eight-point U.S. framework drew fire for provisions that appeared to reward Russian aggression. According to multiple reports, early drafts capped Ukraine's armed forces at six hundred thousand, imposed a constitutional bar on NATO membership, and included language that critics argued pre-recognized Russian control in parts of Donbas. European officials and Ukrainian negotiators pushed back hard during Geneva talks, producing a counter-text that raised the force ceiling to roughly eight hundred thousand, deleted explicit territorial concessions, and left the final territorial lines open for further negotiation rather than deferring legal status questions until after a ceasefire takes hold.
The revised nineteen-point plan reflects those edits. European counterproposals reportedly tighten language on frozen Russian assets—keeping them locked until compensation is negotiated—and strip out maximalist territorial language. An ABC News source claims Ukraine agreed to the new framework "in essence" at Geneva, though Kyiv's public statements stress ongoing work and "sensitive" issues for leaders to resolve. President Zelensky has said the plan contains "many correct elements," but the distance between a working draft and an enforceable treaty remains vast.
Territory versus guarantees
The central tension is straightforward. Any ceasefire must answer two interlocked questions: where does the line freeze, and what prevents Moscow from using a pause to rearm and resume later? Early U.S. drafts tilted toward codifying de facto Russian gains—a formula that treats the Line of Contact as the new border without requiring withdrawal or credible dispute mechanisms. European and Ukrainian edits resist that logic, pushing instead for a "freeze now, adjudicate later" model that preserves Kyiv's legal claims while avoiding immediate recognition of territorial loss.
But legal claims are paper. The operational question is deterrence. Ukraine's survival does not hinge on whether a text acknowledges its sovereignty over occupied Donbas; it hinges on whether renewed Russian aggression would trigger swift, costly, automatic responses. European revisions reportedly describe a U.S. guarantee that "mirrors Article 5," yet public drafts lack treaty-grade enforcement detail—no tripwires, no snapback sanctions architecture, no pre-positioned forces or clear command authority. That gap between rhetoric and structure is the plan's Achilles heel.
Members are reading: Why backchannel speed risks creating the enforcement vacuum that invites the next war.
What Moscow hears
Putin's calculus today is shaped by three years of battlefield attrition and Western indecision. The Kremlin has signaled it will study the revised plan, but Russian officials have dismissed talk of imminent agreement as premature. Moscow's red lines—territorial gains, a NATO ban, limits on Ukrainian force structure—are largely preserved in the framework. The question is whether Putin accepts a ceasefire that does not grant explicit legal recognition of new borders, or whether he holds out for a text that codifies conquest.
Ukrainian positioning complicates the picture. Kyiv signals constructive engagement, but President Zelensky has insisted on a "dignified" peace and reliable security guarantees—terms that require more than rhetorical assurances. Domestic turbulence adds sensitivity; the resignation of powerful chief of staff Andriy Yermak amid corruption allegations narrows Zelensky's room for maneuver. Any settlement perceived as capitulation risks fracturing Ukraine's political consensus and undermining enforcement from within.
The test ahead
Witkoff and Kushner's mission is not to close a deal but to determine whether the revised framework opens space for substantive negotiation. The nineteen points may represent a more balanced text than the original twenty-eight, but balance on paper does not ensure durability. The core variables remain territory and enforcement: whether a ceasefire line rewards aggression, and whether guarantees short of NATO can generate credible deterrence.
Realist logic suggests skepticism. Ceasefires built on vague assurances and incomplete mechanisms tend to collapse when power shifts or attention wanes. The United States and its European allies can choose speed or sustainability—but experience warns they are rarely the same thing. What happens in Moscow today matters less than what happens in the months after any signature: whether tripwires hold, whether monitoring is real, and whether the next test of the line is met with automatic, costly response. Absent those elements, today's deal becomes tomorrow's prelude.
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.
