On December 8, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine would present an updated peace plan to the United States, following a round of intense discussions with European leaders in London. The move marks a significant moment in the ongoing effort to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Russia, which has now stretched into its third year and remains stubbornly unresolved.
According to BBC, Zelenskyy revealed that the newly revised proposal now consists of 20 points, trimmed down from the original 28 after, in his words, "obvious anti-Ukrainian points were removed." The reduction in the number of points signals Ukraine's attempt to streamline negotiations and focus on what it sees as essential elements of a just peace. Yet, the thorniest issue remains: territorial concessions. Zelenskyy made it clear that, despite mounting pressure, Ukraine is not prepared to cede any land to Russia as part of a deal. "We have no legal right – under Ukrainian law, under our constitution, under international law," Zelenskyy stated emphatically. "Honestly, we have no moral right, either."
The original 28-point peace initiative, which was brokered with significant input from the United States, had called for Ukraine to make sweeping territorial concessions, including the entirety of Crimea, as well as the contested regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. This proposal, unsurprisingly, proved highly contentious. While the U.S. has reportedly argued that such concessions are necessary for peace, both Ukraine and its European allies have steadfastly resisted, seeing any surrender of territory as a dangerous precedent and a blow to Ukrainian sovereignty.
The updated plan's delivery to Washington comes at a politically charged moment. Donald Trump Jr., speaking at the Doha Forum 2025, issued a pointed warning that his father, the former U.S. president and current presidential hopeful, could abandon efforts to broker an end to the war if he felt the process was not yielding results. "I think he may," Trump Jr. told Yalda Hakim, the lead world news presenter for Sky News. "What's good about my father and what's unique about my father is you don't know what he's going to do. He's unpredictable."
His comments echoed the uncertainty swirling around former President Donald Trump’s own position. Speaking on December 8, 2025, Trump expressed disappointment with Zelenskyy, claiming the Ukrainian leader hadn't even read the full 28-point proposal. "Russia, I guess, would rather have the whole country when you think of it, but Russia is, I believe, fine with it, but I'm not sure that Zelenskyy is fine with it," Trump remarked. The former president’s comments highlight the ongoing rift between U.S. and Ukrainian leadership over the best path forward, and the unpredictability that surrounds U.S. involvement as the 2026 election cycle looms.
Meanwhile, the war’s shadow continues to spread beyond the battlefield and into the realm of international law and diplomacy. On December 5, 2025, Russia's Investigative Committee issued an international arrest warrant for Robert "Madyar" Brovdi, the commander of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces. According to the Kyiv Independent, Brovdi is accused in absentia of orchestrating a terrorist attack in Russia’s Kursk Oblast that resulted in the death of Anna Prokofieva, a military correspondent for the pro-Kremlin Channel One, on March 26, 2025.
Brovdi responded defiantly to the warrant in a Facebook post on December 7, 2025, referencing a famous line from Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel, The Master and Margarita. "But remember, worms, in your own swampy language: 'Annushka has already spilled the oil,'" Brovdi wrote. The phrase, which alludes to fate’s inescapability, seemed to signal Brovdi’s belief that the consequences of the conflict are already set in motion, regardless of Russia’s legal maneuvers.
This is not the first time Brovdi has found himself the target of international restrictions. In August 2025, Hungary—one of the few European nations maintaining close relations with Moscow—banned Brovdi from entering its territory. The ban followed Brovdi’s confirmation that Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces had struck the Druzhba oil pipeline, a key artery supplying Russian oil to Europe, including Hungary itself. The incident underscored the conflict’s ability to disrupt not only lives and borders but also critical energy infrastructure spanning the continent.
Russia’s practice of issuing arrest warrants for Ukrainian officials is, by now, a well-trodden path. Last year, the Kremlin issued warrants for both President Zelenskyy and former President Petro Poroshenko, though both were later quietly removed from the Russian Interior Ministry’s wanted list. These legal actions, while dramatic, have yet to yield practical results, serving more as tools of political messaging and psychological warfare than meaningful levers of justice.
As the diplomatic and legal battles rage on, the core question remains: can a peace plan be crafted that satisfies all parties? The answer, at least for now, seems elusive. The United States, according to multiple sources, continues to see territorial concessions as an unavoidable part of any settlement—a stance that puts it at odds with both Ukraine’s leadership and a significant swath of European opinion. For Kyiv, the idea of giving up Crimea, Luhansk, or Donetsk is not just politically toxic; it is, as Zelenskyy insists, fundamentally incompatible with Ukrainian law and national identity.
European leaders have largely supported Ukraine’s position, wary that acquiescing to Russian demands could embolden further aggression and destabilize the region. The debate has exposed fissures within the Western alliance, even as it remains united in its condemnation of Russia’s invasion. For ordinary Ukrainians, the prospect of a peace that comes at the price of lost territory is a bitter pill—one that many are unwilling to swallow, regardless of the international pressure.
On the Russian side, the government’s demands for recognition of its control over Crimea and the Donbas remain non-negotiable. The Kremlin’s issuance of arrest warrants for Ukrainian officials, including Brovdi, is part of a broader strategy to delegitimize Ukraine’s military leadership and project an image of legal and moral authority—an image that is fiercely contested by Kyiv and its allies.
As 2025 draws to a close, the conflict’s diplomatic, legal, and political dimensions are as complex as ever. With the U.S. presidential election on the horizon and uncertainty swirling around America’s future role, the stakes for Ukraine could not be higher. The fate of the updated 20-point peace plan—and, by extension, the future of Ukraine’s territorial integrity—now hangs in the balance, awaiting a response from Washington and the unpredictable winds of international politics.
For now, Ukraine stands firm in its refusal to cede ground, even as its leaders navigate a maze of external pressures and internal convictions. The coming months will reveal whether this resolve can be translated into a durable peace—or whether the cycle of war and negotiation will continue, with no end in sight.
