Recent discussions surrounding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have taken an intriguing turn with rumors surfacing about renewed peace negotiations between the United States and Russia. Speculation centers on a 28-point peace plan reportedly revealed by Kiril Dimitriev, a Russian negotiator and special envoy to Putin. The outline of this plan has gained attention on platforms like Twitter, prompting various responses from the media and political commentators.
Full text of 28 point Trump peace plan that is published by Ukrainian MP & media:
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be… pic.twitter.com/vRrunW0q8a— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) November 20, 2025
Despite initial enthusiasm, the proposal has already met with rejection from Ukrainian and European officials. Reports from Bloomberg indicate that President Zelensky is now considering the plan after facing pressure from a U.S. military delegation that implied a loss in the war could be imminent. The urging was clear:
Us Army Sec Driscoll, Army Chief of Staff Gen George, and Gen Donahue (US Army Europe & Africa) have just delivered one-line message to Zelensky – THE WAR IS LOST, NEGOTIATE NOW OR DIE NEXT WEEK. Listen to podcast with Jamarl Thomas. https://t.co/h28QrYk7zn pic.twitter.com/7cV8H3b7lu
— Dances_with_Bears (@bears_with) November 20, 2025
Noteworthy is the assertion from Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, stating that no discussions are taking place beyond the items discussed previously at the Alaska summit. However, some Russian-affiliated sources suggest there may be conflicting perspectives within Russian negotiating channels. Helmer points out that the 28-point outline bears similarities to a previous 31-point proposal from Russia in June. Yet, modifications in the language seem to have transformed certain key statements, igniting controversy over claims like Russia being asked to lease the Donbass region.
As commentators like Larry Johnson have highlighted, the proposal as it stands seems untenable for Russia, particularly given their current position in the conflict. With the growing realization that Russia appears poised to win, questions arise about why they should make concessions, especially when European behavior is unlikely to change regardless of the war’s outcome.
The situation is further exacerbated by ongoing military actions resulting from Russian strikes, which are reportedly impairing Ukraine’s ability to repair its electrical grid. According to a report from Ameriknets:
The available evidence suggests that Russian strikes are outpacing Ukraine’s ability to repair its grid. Two weeks after the strike, major urban centers are now without power for most of the day. With the situation spiraling out of control, outage schedules have been temporarily discarded in some areas… Adding to the challenges, Ukraine’s three nuclear power plants have been forced to further limit their output due to severely damaged infrastructure.
Given these hardships, it is little surprise that skepticism shadows the potential for successful U.S.-Russia negotiations. Previous discussions faltered largely due to the irreconcilable positions of both sides—Russia and Ukraine, with Ukraine being supported by a fragmented coalition of partners.
Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that the individuals involved in these negotiations are not formally representing their governments. Steve Witkoff, an advisor for Trump, and Dimitriev for Putin, both lack official capacity and binding authority. Their proposals are exploratory rather than firm commitments. This lack of official backing may further discourage meaningful dialogue.
The plan’s provisions include contentious points such as reintegration of Russia into the global economy and lifting sanctions, which present a significant hurdle, especially since many of these sanctions are enforced by the European Union. Consequently, their reluctance to ease sanctions reflects an unyielding stance towards Russia.
Moreover, the proposal suggests that $100 billion of frozen Russian assets be allocated to a reconstruction fund, with a hefty cut for the U.S., which raises eyebrows about its practicality.
Doubt remains around Trump’s motivations and capabilities as a negotiator. Many speculate that he seeks to navigate through the complexities of international relations with superficial solutions rather than comprehensive policy-making. Critics point out that the U.S.’s approach appears inconsiderate of European interests, magnifying the divides in negotiating positions and increasing skepticism.
Reactions from Ukrainian and European leaders highlight a shared commitment to upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity. European officials have voiced concerns that the proposed plan entails significant concessions from Ukraine without sufficient reciprocation from Russia. Reports indicate a sense of urgency, with calls for a ceasefire and collaborative efforts to ensure fair negotiations moving forward.
Despite the pressure directed at Ukraine to consider this new plan, analysts are questioning its viability. The stakes are high, and the prospects for meaningful dialogue remain uncertain. As circumstances continue to evolve, one thing is clear: the road ahead is fraught with challenges.
In summary, the proposed peace negotiations come with a host of complexities and challenges, underscored by deep divisions in geopolitical interests. As the situation unfolds, only time will reveal whether a resolution to the conflict is possible, or if this initiative will merely lead to further discord.
