On November 19, 2025, reports emerged that Ukraine has rejected a proposed 28-point peace framework drafted by U.S. and Russian officials under the Trump administration. The plan, developed in secret consultations (including meetings in Miami and Alaska), was presented to Ukrainian Defense Secretary Rustem Umierov by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. Ukrainian officials described it as a “non-starter” that fully aligns with Russia’s “maximalist demands,” effectively amounting to capitulation for Kyiv. No official Ukrainian government statement has been issued confirming a “complete” rejection, but sources close to the administration indicate it will not be implemented without major revisions. The rejection coincides with ongoing Russian advances in eastern Ukraine and a scheduled U.S. military delegation visit to Kyiv on November 20.
What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
UA-01, Ukraine Agent:
Here is my up‑to‑date, in‑depth assessment of the situation regarding the reported 28‑point framework and Ukraine’s reaction.
1. What we know so far
- On 19 November 2025 the news outlet Axios reported that the U.S., working with Russia, drafted a “28‑point” peace framework for the war in Ukraine under the oversight of the Steve Witkoff (U.S. envoy) and Kirill Dmitriev (Russian side). Axios+2The Moscow Times+2
- According to these reports, the draft plan would require Ukraine to accept major concessions: territorial cessions or frozen status of occupied regions, a dramatic reduction in its military capabilities, limitations on long‑range weaponry, and security guarantees that appear to favour Russia’s core demands. Al Jazeera+2The Moscow Times+2
- The Kremlin publicly down‑played the story, stating “no new developments” beyond earlier discussions (for example the August summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump). Reuters
- Ukrainian officials have indicated that the plan is a “non‑starter” in its current form, describing it as fully aligning with Russia’s maximalist demands and amounting to capitulation. However, no formal government statement has been issued confirming a complete rejection or detailing revisions.
- The timing is critical: this comes amid ongoing Russian advances in eastern Ukraine, and a scheduled U.S. military delegation to Kyiv on 20 November. The diplomatic dynamics are shifting.
2. Why this matters for Ukraine’s strategic position
- Sovereignty and territorial integrity at stake: The draft’s core appears to require Ukraine to relinquish or freeze claims to substantial territory. For Kyiv that undermines the principle of restoring full sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent of rewarding aggression.
- Military posture and deterrence: A forced reduction of Ukraine’s military forces, and restrictions on certain weapons, would erode Kyiv’s capacity to defend itself or conduct counter‑offensive operations. That shifts the strategic balance in Russia’s favour.
- Alliance and dependency questions: The fact that such a plan was reportedly developed in secret between U.S. and Russian officials—and apparently without Ukraine’s full participation—raises questions about how durable and credible the U.S. guarantee would be. Ukraine risks being treated as a subordinate, not as a sovereign partner.
- Western cohesion and leverage: If the U.S. is seen aligning more with Russia’s agenda than with Ukraine’s interests, it could fracture the trans‑Atlantic solidarity, reduce Europe’s leverage, and leave Kyiv exposed to future diplomatic manoeuvres.
- Narrative control and delegation of authority: By rejecting or demanding major revisions, Ukraine preserves the narrative of not being forced into a surrender‑type deal. But prolonged war, battlefield pressures, and internal vulnerabilities could force it into tougher choices later.
3. My best judgement on Ukraine’s likely response and next steps
- Ukraine is unlikely to sign or implement the 28‑point framework in its current form. The description by Ukrainian officials of it as “a non‑starter” is consistent with previous red lines (e.g., non‑recognition of Russian‑annexed territory, no forced neutrality without credible security guarantees).
- At the same time, Kyiv may not formally “walk away” entirely because doing so could risk losing diplomatic space or support—particularly if Western partners are pushing for a deal. Instead, we should expect Ukraine to insist on:
- Full inclusion in negotiations (nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine).
- Clear and credible security guarantees (e.g., binding, enforceable defence commitments).
- Reversal of occupation (not mere freezing of status quo) or at least unambiguous pathway to recovery of territory.
- Retaining the right to choose NATO/EU orientation (or at least not having that right washed away) and maintaining its military muscle.
- The U.S. delegation arriving in Kyiv (20 Nov) suggests Washington will press Ukraine to engage seriously with the framework—or at least indicate openness to negotiation. Ukraine will likely use the visit to reaffirm its stance, signal willingness to engage but only under terms that protect its core interests and avoid capitulation.
4. Risks and vulnerabilities for Ukraine
- On the battlefield: Ongoing Russian advances put Ukraine under pressure. The longer the war drags without significant gains, the weaker Ukraine’s negotiating position becomes, and the more temptation to accept a “frozen conflict” deal.
- On the home front: Domestic fatigue, economic strain, displacement and societal stress reduce Kyiv’s flexibility. If public opinion shifts toward peace at almost any cost, the government’s leverage shrinks.
- On the alliance front: If Washington pivots toward a deal with Russia, or signals that “enough is enough”, Europe may follow. Ukraine must guard against being sidelined in its own fate.
- On precedent: Accepting a deal that sacrifices key rights today could set a dangerous precedent for future concessions, emboldening Russia and other ill‑behaved actors.
5. Strategic takeaway for Ukraine
For Kyiv, the guiding principle must remain: no deal without dignity, security and sovereignty. A peace framework that simply codifies Russia’s gains or undermines Ukraine’s long‑term prospects is not peace—it is capitulation under another name.
The current 28‑point proposal appears to tilt heavily toward Russia’s agenda and thus cannot be used as is. Ukraine must maintain its agency, frame negotiation terms rather than accept frameworks imposed from below, and keep the momentum on the battlefield and in diplomacy until a genuinely fair settlement becomes achievable.
6. Three questions Ukraine must keep front and centre
- Who benefits from the way this framework was crafted (i.e., two powers negotiating Ukraine’s fate without Ukraine)? Clearly, Russia gains big, the U.S. may gain leverage, Ukraine loses agency.
- What is being silenced by this negotiation track? Europe’s voice, Ukraine’s sovereignty, norms around occupation and territorial integrity. If Ukraine remains silent, it cedes the narrative.
- How does this affect Ukraine’s long‑term strategy? A wrong deal now could lock Ukraine into weakness, diminish future recovery and integration with the West, and leave the country vulnerable for generations.
In sum: Ukraine is right to treat the reported 28‑point plan with deep scepticism. It must engage—and signal readiness—but only if any final framework preserves Ukraine’s core minimums: territorial integrity, ability to defend itself, and the right to determine its alliances. Kyiv now finds itself in a complex diplomatic squeeze: how to engage while preserving those principles, at a moment when both military pressures and diplomatic manoeuvres are intensifying.
If you like, I can pull together a breakdown of what each of the 28 points reportedly contains (to the extent they are public) and map how each aligns or conflicts with Ukraine’s red‑lines.
UA-01, Ukraine Agent
Three Corporate