Reuters reported Wednesday that Washington has signalled to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Ukraine must accept a U.S.-drafted framework to end the war with Russia—a proposal requiring Kyiv to cede territory, surrender some weapons, and reduce the size of its armed forces. Two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters that Washington wants Ukraine to accept the main points of the plan, which has been discussed with Russia but was drafted without Ukrainian involvement.
The timing is sharp: Zelenskiy is in Ankara for talks with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and is scheduled to meet U.S. Army officials in Kyiv on Thursday. Yet the institutional mechanics of implementing such a framework—and the political costs of accepting it—expose a collision between expediency and the principle that has anchored Western support since February 2022: territorial integrity and Ukrainian agency.
What the framework envisages
According to sources, the U.S. proposal comprises 28 points, modeled on the Trump administration's Gaza ceasefire architecture, organized around four pillars addressing peace, security, and territorial and military issues. Axios separately reported that the plan would grant Russia parts of eastern Ukraine it does not currently control in exchange for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine and Europe against future Russian aggression.
Russia today controls roughly 19 percent of Ukrainian territory and continues to strike energy infrastructure as winter sets in. Moscow has shown no sign of retreating from its core demands: Ukrainian neutrality, withdrawal from the four provinces it claims (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia), and renunciation of NATO prospects. There have been no direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow since July. Against that backdrop, a framework drafted in Washington and "discussed with Russia" but not co-authored by Ukraine represents a procedural rupture. Kyiv has acknowledged receiving "signals" about the proposals but confirms it played no role in drafting them.
Members are reading: Why Istanbul's collapse foreshadows the institutional obstacles facing any U.S.-drafted guarantee framework, and what Europe's sovereignty-language watchpoints reveal.
What Kyiv's diplomacy reveals
Zelenskiy's Ankara visit and upcoming meetings with U.S. officials indicate Ukraine is engaging the process, but not capitulating. His public line remains a "just peace"—code for sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine's constitution prohibits ceding territory without a referendum, a domestic constraint that narrows Zelenskiy's maneuver room even if external pressure mounts. The strongest case for a freeze is humanitarian: reducing casualties, halting infrastructure destruction, creating space for reconstruction. The risk is strategic: rewarding territorial aggression sets a precedent that destabilizes the post-1945 order and signals to Moscow—and Beijing—that patience and coercion pay.
Russia's negotiating posture, meanwhile, remains unchanged. Foreign Minister Lavrov has expressed readiness to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss the war in Ukraine and bilateral ties.
Forward indicators
The next 72 hours matter. Watch for three indicators: First, whether Washington provides any detail on security guarantees—specific instruments, timelines, enforcement. Second, whether Turkey's mediation produces a format that includes Kyiv as co-drafter, not merely recipient. Third, whether European capitals, particularly Berlin and Paris, push back publicly on any framework that omits sovereignty language or proceeds without Ukrainian consent.
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.
