On December 24, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made headlines with the announcement of a newly negotiated 20-point peace plan that, if accepted, could bring an end to nearly four years of brutal conflict in Ukraine. The plan, hammered out over several days in Florida between American and Ukrainian officials, marks a significant shift in Kyiv’s stance, offering compromises that were previously off the table and putting fresh pressure on Moscow to respond.
According to BBC and CNN, Zelenskyy described the new proposal as a “foundational document on ending the war, a political document between us, America, Europe, and the Russians.” The plan is a streamlined update of an earlier, more Russia-friendly 28-point framework, reflecting months of back-and-forth between Kyiv, Washington, and European capitals. Zelenskyy told reporters, “We have significantly brought most of the positions closer together,” though he acknowledged that “we did not reach a consensus with the American side on the territory of the Donetsk region and on the [Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant].”
The heart of the plan involves a series of bold, and at times contentious, compromises. Ukraine would withdraw its troops from certain parts of the eastern Donbas region, creating a demilitarized, independent economic zone to be monitored by international forces. This zone would not only encompass portions of Ukrainian territory currently under Russian occupation but, in a notable departure from previous proposals, would also include limited areas inside Russia. The idea is to create a buffer that would, in theory, prevent renewed hostilities and build trust where, as Zelenskyy put it, “there is no faith in the Russians, and they have repeatedly broken their promises.”
For the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—a site of immense strategic and symbolic value, currently under Russian control—the plan suggests an international solution. The U.S. initially floated a joint arrangement involving Ukraine and Russia, but Zelenskyy rejected any direct Russian control, instead proposing a joint venture between Ukraine and the U.S., with Washington determining how its share might be allocated, including the option of transferring it to Russia. As of now, the U.S. has not agreed to this counterproposal.
Security guarantees form the backbone of the proposal. The plan calls for a bilateral security agreement between Ukraine and the U.S., subject to congressional approval, and continued European military presence across land, air, and sea. These guarantees would mirror NATO’s Article 5 principle—meaning that if Ukraine were attacked again, all parties would respond collectively. European countries have signaled openness to deploying troops as part of the arrangement, and a monitoring mechanism would oversee the line of contact to detect any violations.
Ukraine’s demand for security is not without reason. The so-called “fortress belt” of cities like Kramatorsk and Sloviansk stands as a bulwark against deeper Russian advances. Russian President Vladimir Putin has insisted that Ukraine must cede all of Donetsk for peace, but Kyiv’s position is that any withdrawal must be reciprocated by equivalent Russian pullbacks. Zelenskyy explained, “If we establish a free economic zone here, and it envisages a virtually demilitarized zone—meaning heavy forces are removed from this area—and the distance, for example, is 40 kilometers (it could be five, 10, or 40 kilometers)—then if these two cities, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, are our free economic zone, the Russians would have to pull back their troops accordingly by five, 10, or 40 kilometers.”
Another major hurdle is the status of Ukrainian territory. Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine, and Moscow has shown little willingness to relinquish its grip. Earlier proposals—widely seen as tilted toward Russian demands—would have allowed Russia to retain almost all occupied territory, including Crimea, annexed by Moscow in 2014. This latest plan, however, would require Russian troops to withdraw from Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions, as well as the areas forming the new economic zones.
The economic dimension of the plan is ambitious. Ukraine seeks at least $800 billion in reconstruction funding, a figure that underscores the staggering losses inflicted by the war. The proposal includes investment guarantees to restart the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, repair a nearby dam, and attract global capital. There is also talk of a $200 billion Ukraine investment fund involving both the U.S. and Europe. Fast-tracking a free-trade agreement with the U.S. and temporary access to European markets are on the table, as are mineral extraction agreements—a nod to earlier U.S. proposals linking support to access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves.
Political legitimacy is another sticking point. Zelenskyy’s presidential term was set to end in May 2024, but elections were postponed under martial law. The new plan requires Ukraine to hold elections as soon as possible after the agreement is signed, a demand pushed by both Russia and the U.S. However, as Zelenskyy pointed out, “A referendum requires at least 60 days. And we need a real ceasefire for 60 days; otherwise, we cannot hold it. In other words, the referendum would not be legitimate.” The plan also proposes a nationwide referendum to formalize the end of the war and determine the status of the new economic zones, but only in areas under Ukrainian control, given the impossibility of a fair vote in Russian-occupied territories.
Ukraine’s aspirations for deeper integration with the West are reflected in the plan’s call for a timeline for European Union accession, though it remains unclear whether it would restrict Ukraine from joining NATO—a key Russian demand in earlier talks. The new draft omits any explicit ban on NATO membership, a point that may prove contentious with Moscow.
Despite the flurry of diplomatic activity, the response from Russia has been muted. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Moscow would discuss the proposal after reviewing details from Russian negotiators who had met with U.S. officials. “We aim to formulate our future stance and resume our contacts shortly via the established channels currently in use,” Peskov said, declining to discuss specifics. As of December 24, 2025, Russian attacks continued in Ukraine’s Zaporizhia region, killing at least one person and injuring three, according to the regional governor, a stark reminder that the violence has not abated even as peace talks progress.
For now, the ball appears to be in Russia’s court. Zelenskyy has signaled a readiness to make difficult concessions, but the fate of the peace plan hinges on whether Moscow is willing to reciprocate. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher for Ukraine’s future—and for the prospects of lasting peace in Europe.
