Why the U.S. 28-Point Peace Plan Is Unacceptable to Ukraine
Although a majority of Ukrainians support a negotiated end to the war, several provisions of the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace proposal make it unacceptable from Kyiv’s perspective. Key elements of the plan would weaken Ukraine’s defensive posture, violate its constitution, and provide no credible long-term security guarantees. As written, the proposal creates strategic and legal risks that Ukraine cannot accept.
One of the most consequential elements of the proposal is point-21, which states that “Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the parts of the Donetsk region they currently control.” Implementing this provision would require Ukraine to relinquish a defensive system built around the Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka urban belt. These cities sit on elevated terrain, contain extensive fortifications, and are linked by rail and road networks that allow rapid reinforcement along the front. If vacated, Ukraine would lose its strongest prepared defensive position in eastern Ukraine and would have limited alternatives offering terrain advantage, and logistical connectivity.
Beyond the operational implications, point-21 also poses legal constraints. Article Two of the Ukrainian Constitution states that the country’s borders are “indivisible and inviolable,” which prevents the transfer or cession of sovereign territory. As a result, any peace agreement requiring territorial concession would be inconsistent with Ukraine’s constitutional framework, limiting the government’s ability to implement such a provision regardless of external pressure. For both legal and security reasons, any future agreement would therefore need to begin from the current line of contact.
Even setting territorial issues aside, the proposal raises additional structural concerns related to long-term security arrangements. Point-five states that “Ukraine will receive robust security guarantees,” but does not specify the scope, of these guarantees. This ambiguity echoes the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, under which Ukraine relinquished the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for “security assurances.” Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion in 2022 have made Ukrainian policymakers cautious about broad or undefined guarantees without clearly enforceable commitments.
The uncertainty surrounding guarantees is compounded by point-eight, which states that “NATO agrees not to station any troops in Ukraine.” This indicates that security guarantees would not include external military presence, limiting their deterrent effect. Under such conditions, Ukraine would remain primarily responsible for its own defense. However, point-six caps Ukrainian military personnel at 600,000 across all branches—significantly below the 1.5 million active-duty force President Zelensky has stated is necessary to deter future aggression and defend the country’s territory.
The 28-point peace proposal introduces serious operational, constitutional, and security challenges for Ukraine. Requiring withdrawal from the Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostiantynivka defensive belt would weaken Ukraine’s most fortified positions in the east and conflict with constitutional limits on land transfer. At the same time, vague security guarantees, restrictions on external support, and caps on force size offer no credible mechanism to deter future aggression. These combined issues explain why the proposal is unacceptable to Ukrainian policymakers and why it has gained little traction. Any viable peace agreement would need to resolve these operational, legal, and long-term deterrence concerns in order to provide Ukraine with a durable and enforceable security arrangement capable of supporting a perpetual peace.
