As the world marks nearly four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the diplomatic landscape has shifted into an intense and perilous phase. A leaked 28-point peace plan, drafted by the United States and Russia, has thrust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European allies into a high-stakes scramble, with the threat of losing vital American support looming large. The proposal, presented to Zelenskyy on November 20, 2025, by US Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, has been met with profound skepticism, both in Kyiv and across Europe. The days leading up to the US-imposed Thanksgiving deadline have seen a flurry of crisis talks, urgent diplomacy, and public unease, with the fate of Ukraine and the security of Europe hanging in the balance.
The origins of the peace plan are as contentious as its contents. According to Sky News, the draft was the product of negotiations between US envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterpart Kirill Dmitriev. Its arrival in Kyiv was abrupt, catching even close American allies like Britain off guard. Jonathan Powell, Britain’s national security adviser and a key influence on the Trump administration, was present in Geneva for the pivotal talks, but the UK had not received prior notice of the plan’s details.
The plan’s provisions are sweeping and, to many, deeply troubling. As reported by ABC and corroborated by Chatham House experts, the deal demands that Ukraine cede significant territory—including the embattled eastern Donbas region—adopt Russian as an official language, and slash the size of its military by half. In return, the plan offers only ambiguous assurances about limits on further Russian military action. It also bars Ukraine from ever joining NATO or the European Union, changes that would require not only Ukrainian constitutional amendments but also unprecedented alterations to NATO’s founding treaty.
These terms, unsurprisingly, have been welcomed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a televised meeting with his security council, Putin stated, “We have this text and received it through existing channels of cooperation with the US administration. I believe that it can also form the basis for a final peaceful settlement.” Experts see the plan as essentially a Kremlin wishlist, delivered with the imprimatur of American diplomacy. Orysia Lutsevych of Chatham House described it as “a brainchild of the Kremlin,” arguing that it “resembles more a demand for capitulation, especially as it imposes limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty and pushes to cede territory in the Donbas region that Russia has failed to conquer militarily.”
The pressure on Ukraine is immense and deeply personal for President Zelenskyy. On November 21, in a somber national address, he confessed, “Now is one of the most difficult moments of our history. Now, the pressure on Ukraine is one of the heaviest.” He added, “Ukraine can face a very difficult choice – either losing dignity or risk losing a major partner.” The dilemma is stark: accept a deal widely seen as a surrender, or risk isolation as the US threatens to withdraw its support.
Domestically, Zelenskyy’s hand is weakened further by a corruption scandal involving key allies, which has eroded his authority. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian people are bracing for another brutal winter, with Russian airstrikes targeting the country’s energy infrastructure. Yet, if the Trump administration hoped that these pressures would soften Ukrainian resolve, public opinion suggests otherwise. Pollster Anton Grushetsky of the Kiev International Institute of Sociology told the BBC that “75 percent of Ukrainians strongly reject the peace deal and 70 percent believe that, if they accept the peace deal, Russia will attack again.” Voices on the street echo this defiance, even as the specter of abandonment grows.
The plan’s sudden emergence has also rattled European capitals. Many leaders, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, and Britain’s Keir Starmer, have scrambled to coordinate a response. At the G20 summit in Johannesburg, 14 allied leaders—including Australia—issued a carefully worded statement, affirming their support for Ukraine but expressing grave concerns about the draft. “We are also concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack,” the statement read. It emphasized that “borders must not be changed by force” and insisted that decisions on NATO or EU membership must have the consent of all member states.
Behind the scenes, the urgency is palpable. The Geneva meeting on November 23, initially billed as a bilateral US-Ukrainian encounter, quickly expanded to include senior officials from several European nations. According to Sky News, this gathering is pivotal, setting the agenda for what could be a decisive week. European leaders are expected to convene in Washington for further crisis talks, possibly as early as November 25, in a last-ditch effort to influence President Trump before the Thanksgiving deadline.
The plan’s origins trace back to US Vice President JD Vance, whose earlier proposals closely resemble the current draft. Vance’s skepticism about continued support for Ukraine and his focus on “the home front” have shaped the administration’s push for a quick resolution. Driscoll, a close friend of Vance from their Yale days, has been a key conduit in presenting the plan to Ukrainian officials. The timing, just ahead of the US holiday season, suggests a desire to resolve the issue swiftly—perhaps to refocus attention on domestic priorities.
Yet, the plan has not only divided allies but also sparked fierce criticism within the United States. Prominent Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman Don Bacon, have publicly denounced the proposal. McConnell warned on X (formerly Twitter), “Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests.” Bacon was even more blunt: “I’m embarrassed as an American that our president would try to force this agreement on Ukraine—giving up territory, cutting its army by more than half, never allowing them in NATO and not allowing foreign troops on their soil. It’s a surrender to a Russian invasion.” He called on Congress to “inject itself into this appeasement by the administration towards Russia.”
For all the drama, the outcome remains uncertain. As Keir Giles of Chatham House observed, “There is no peace process. This is not negotiations over peace: it is the transmission of surrender demands from Russia with the active facilitation of the United States.” The plan’s vagueness and unenforceable provisions, he warned, leave Ukraine dangerously exposed to future aggression. Professor Marc Weller, another Chatham House expert, noted that enshrining permanent neutrality in Ukraine’s constitution and altering NATO’s statutes would be nearly impossible, making the plan’s legal underpinnings dubious at best.
As Thanksgiving approaches, the stakes could hardly be higher. European allies are rearming at a pace not seen in decades, wary of Russian drones and the threat of further aggression. The US holds the crucial lever of military intelligence, without which Ukraine’s war effort would be severely hampered. Yet, with the Trump administration’s position shifting unpredictably, and with domestic and international opposition mounting, the coming days will test the resilience of Ukraine, the unity of its allies, and the future of the postwar European order.
In a moment fraught with uncertainty, one thing is clear: the decisions made in the next week will reverberate far beyond the borders of Ukraine, shaping the security and principles of Europe for years to come.