The US and Russia have presented a 28-point peace plan to Ukraine, setting a deadline for acceptance with an implicit threat of abandonment should Kyiv refuse. President Trump has stated his expectation that Ukrainian President Zelensky “would ‘have to like'” the US proposal, indicating a reluctance to negotiate and imposing a Thursday deadline for Zelensky’s decision.
Zelensky acknowledges the stark choice presented by the plan: accepting Russian demands outlined in the 28 points or risking the loss of crucial US support. Rejecting the proposal would have severe consequences for Ukraine, jeopardizing its access to weapons, intelligence, and financial aid, exacerbating existing issues such as troop shortages, economic instability, and public distrust in Zelensky’s administration.
Most critically, rejecting the plan would signify a fundamental break with the US, carrying immense strategic implications for Ukraine and its European allies. This could lead to the US withdrawing from the conflict altogether, reneging on its security guarantees for Ukraine and leaving not only Kyiv but also Europe to face Russia alone.
While losing US weaponry would be detrimental for Ukraine, the impact wouldn’t be as significant as it would have been three years ago due to the evolving nature of warfare and the growth of European military support. Europe has allocated over $40 billion in military aid since the start of the war, surpassing the US contribution by $5 billion.
The loss of US weaponry would primarily affect Ukraine’s air defenses, which rely heavily on Patriot batteries and missiles. Although Zelensky has repeatedly requested more air defense systems from the US, the Patriots are in limited supply. Even if the US halted its own missile and spare parts supply, it might still permit European and other allies to continue supporting Ukraine.
Ukraine has also benefited from a limited supply of highly effective US ATACM missiles. However, the Trump administration has demonstrated a greater willingness to sell US weapons through a European-funded program known as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), valued at approximately $90 billion. This program could be jeopardized if Kyiv rejects the plan.
On the positive side, Ukraine has developed a formidable drone and missile industry, even though it requires further expansion. Ukrainian officials have stated that 90% of the drones used by the country are domestically produced.
Regarding intelligence sharing, the US briefly suspended its provision to Ukraine in March following a controversial meeting between Trump and Zelensky. The specifics of this cooperation remain undisclosed but likely include early warnings of Russian missile launches and real-time analysis of Russian troop movements, crucial given the ongoing advances by Russian forces on multiple frontlines.
Zelensky acknowledged in October that all of Ukraine’s defenses against Russian missiles – Patriot, NASAMS, and IRIS-T – would lack sufficient data without US intelligence, hindering their effectiveness. US intelligence has also reportedly been used by Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia, targeting military and energy infrastructure, according to Ukrainian sources.
While European nations are improving their access to such intelligence, it takes years to build and coordinate such capabilities.
Beyond weaponry and intelligence, Ukraine faces internal challenges that no amount of US support can address. Its military suffers from a severe manpower crisis, with tens of thousands of soldiers deserting in the first seven months of this year alone. Many infantry units are severely understaffed, and reducing the draft age from 25 is considered politically unpopular.
Should Kyiv reject the blueprint, US financial backing for Ukraine’s solvency could also be withdrawn. The International Monetary Fund estimates that Ukraine needs $65 billion in budget support over the next year alone. While the European Union has been struggling to agree on a way to use frozen Russian assets as collateral for loans, the 28-point plan threatens to derail these delicate negotiations.
The plan proposes investing $100 billion in frozen Russian assets into US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine, with the US receiving 50% of the profits. It also insists on unfreezing frozen European-held Russian funds, even though those funds are beyond US control and Europe is not a party to the plan.
The proposal promises “reliable security guarantees” for Ukraine but lacks specific details. Language such as “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries” would likely not inspire confidence in Kyiv.
Reports suggest that an annex to the plan defines “a significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack by the Russian Federation across the agreed armistice line into Ukrainian territory” as a threat to the transatlantic community’s peace and security. CNN has been unable to confirm this clause.
Without clear and detailed guarantees endorsed by the US Congress with legal force and backed by sanctions, Zelensky’s acceptance of the bare outline in the plan seems unlikely. However, rejecting it carries existential risks.
Long before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin aimed to divide Europe from the US. The Kremlin has often contrasted Trump’s efforts to settle the conflict with the “war-mongers” in Europe since he took office.
The 28-point plan reflects this administration’s semi-detached view of NATO, proposing a dialogue between Russia and NATO mediated by the US, essentially replacing Ukraine’s ally role with that of an arbitrator.
European leaders, along with Japan and Canada, expressed their concerns in a statement on Saturday, stating that the plan “requires additional work” and highlighting their concern about the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave it vulnerable to attack.
Some Europeans view this as a defining moment. Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis stated on X on Saturday: “We have been repeatedly told unequivocally that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, will be Europe’s responsibility. And now it is.”
A month ago, Zelensky discussed with Trump opportunities to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense and concrete agreements to ensure this. Those options have vanished.
The potential loss of weapons systems and intelligence, along with their immediate impact on a battlefield tilting towards Moscow and Ukraine’s energy supplies, are significant. However, they pale in comparison to the prospect of Washington rewarding Putin’s aggression by overlooking his seizure of European territory and detaching itself from the most successful alliance for peace in modern history.
Anne Applebaum writes in The Atlantic: “There is a long tradition of great powers in Europe making deals over the heads of smaller countries, leading to terrible suffering. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with its secret protocols, brought us World War II. The Yalta agreement gave us the Cold War. The Witkoff-Dmitriev pact, if it holds, will fit right into that tradition.”
About the Author
