Trump’s 28-Point Ukraine “Peace Plan” Calls for Kyiv to Cede Territory and Abandon NATO Ambitions

Trump’s 28-Point Peace Plan Demands Ukraine Surrender Land and NATO Goals

A controversial 28-point “peace plan” reportedly orchestrated by former U.S. President Donald Trump has surfaced, calling on Ukraine to make sweeping concessions that critics say amount to a de facto surrender. The proposal, presented to Kyiv by a U.S. delegation, would require Ukraine to cede territory, reduce its military, renounce NATO membership permanently, and accept limited security guarantees — raising alarm in Ukraine and across Europe.

Background

The draft framework was reportedly handed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, acting as an envoy for Trump. According to media reports, the plan was developed with input from Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian sovereign wealth official Kirill Dmitriev.

This proposal comes amid mounting criticism in Kyiv and among Western allies, who say it disproportionately favors Moscow and undermines Ukrainian sovereignty.

Key Provisions of the Plan

According to the leaked 28-point draft (as reported by Sky News, National Security Journal, and others), the proposal includes the following major terms:

• Territorial concessions: Ukraine would cede land in the east — including areas not fully controlled by Russia — and freeze the front lines in regions such as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
• Military reductions: The size of Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 personnel, down from roughly 800,000–900,000.
• Renunciation of NATO: Kyiv would amend its constitution to permanently rule out NATO membership. NATO in turn would amend its own statutes, barring Ukraine from future accession.
• No foreign troops or long-range weapons: The draft would prohibit NATO or U.S. troops from being stationed in Ukraine and restrict certain classes of weapons.
• Security guarantees: Ukraine would receive “reliable security guarantees” from the United States, though the language remains vague.
• Economic terms: Frozen Russian assets (reportedly around $100 billion) would be used for Ukrainian reconstruction, with Washington playing a central role and potentially sharing in the profits.
• Sanctions relief: Sanctions on Russia would be gradually eased, and Moscow would gain a pathway to rejoin global economic institutions, including a potential return to the G8.
• Domestic governance: The plan proposes that Ukraine hold national elections within 100 days.

Reactions from Kyiv and Europe

Ukrainian officials have strongly rejected the plan. A senior security official told DAWN that the terms resemble surrender, particularly the territorial demands and restrictions on NATO membership. President Zelenskyy has acknowledged receipt of the proposal, saying his government will assess it “honestly and swiftly,” but has also warned of grave consequences.

During a televised address, Zelenskyy framed the situation in stark terms: “Now the pressure on Ukraine is one of the heaviest. We can face a difficult choice — either losing our dignity, or risking the loss of a major partner.”

European leaders have also expressed deep concern. German and Polish ministers have cautioned that any deal allowing Russia to consolidate territorial gains could undermine long-term European security. Meanwhile, EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas has emphasized that Europe must be involved in any credible peace process.

Expert Analysis

Chatham House, a leading think tank in London, has issued an early assessment of the plan. Analysts including Orysia Lutsevych and Keir Giles argue that the proposal appears heavily tilted toward Russian objectives, effectively transforming Moscow’s war aims into a Western-endorsed settlement.

They warn that limiting Ukraine’s military strength and precluding future NATO admission would leave the country vulnerable to renewed aggression. According to Marc Weller, a professor of international law at Chatham House, the constitutional amendment to forbid NATO membership raises serious questions about Ukrainian sovereignty and legal continuity.

U.S. Perspective

On the U.S. side, proponents of the peace plan—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio—argue that difficult but mutual concessions are necessary for a durable settlement. Rubio has defended the effort as a pragmatic path to ending the bloodshed. Meanwhile, the White House has portrayed Trump’s initiative as a push for a “lasting and durable peace,” blaming both Russia and Ukraine for rejecting previous compromise offers.

What Happens Next

Diplomatic talks are reportedly underway in Geneva, where U.S. and Ukrainian delegations have met to discuss revisions to the proposal. However, key European partners have also tabled a competing framework. According to The Guardian, the European alternative calls for negotiations over territory only after a ceasefire, and notably does not demand that Ukraine forgo NATO membership.

Chatham House analysts warn that if Ukraine accepts a deal resembling the Trump plan, it could set a dangerous precedent: “This is not just a peace deal,” they argue, “but a mechanism for permanently weakening Ukraine’s sovereignty.”

Impact and What’s Next

If adopted, the plan could reshape the geopolitical order in Europe: granting Moscow de facto control over contested Ukrainian regions, weakening Kyiv’s military posture, and disincentivizing NATO integration. It could also fracture transatlantic unity, as European powers reject a U.S.-led process that sidelines both Kyiv’s interests and European security architecture.

For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. Accepting the draft risks deep domestic backlash and long-term vulnerability. Rejecting it could strain relations with Washington at a time when military and financial support remain vital.

The coming days — including further Geneva talks, European counterproposals, and Kyiv’s public response — will be critical in determining whether this peace plan marks a turning point or deepens existing divides.