28 points Atrocities and opportunities - what can Trump's peace plan achieve?

Russia's war of aggression has been devastating neighboring Ukraine for over three and a half years. Kiev is on the defensive, and this can also be felt in US proposals for an end to the war.

DPA

21.11.2025, 14:23

dpa

Donald Trump's peace plan for Gaza had 20 points - the US President is now trying to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging for more than three and a half years, with 28 points. The proposals demand a lot from the attacked country in particular. But other parties involved, such as Russia and the European states, also have a lot to swallow. Questions and answers on the proposal:

The final and complete renunciation of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions demanded by Washington (in addition to Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014) would probably be the most difficult for Kiev to accept. After all, Russian troops have not yet succeeded in taking these territories militarily. Ukraine's deputy UN ambassador Khrystyna Hajovyshyn has already made her opposition to this demand clear: her country will not accept any shifting of borders, she said at a special session of the UN Security Council.

28 points for peaceTrump's plan includes these delicate concessions from Ukraine

Donbass is not only of symbolic importance for Ukraine. Economically, it was once the backbone of Ukrainian industry. In military terms, the Ukrainian positions here are still the strongest today. Losing them would mean being defenceless against a new attack - especially with a reduced army, which is also envisaged in the plan.

Another hurdle for Ukraine would be to remove its aspiration to join Nato from the constitution. However, Kiev has recently stopped pursuing this goal with vigor because it is clear that the USA and other large NATO states are blocking it. Ukraine should also accept a reduction in the size of its army. The fighting force currently numbers around 800,000 men and women. However, for a European country that no longer has to fight, the 600,000 soldiers under discussion would still be a very strong armed force.

Moscow is trying to influence Ukrainian domestic policy through the rights of ethnic Russians and the Russian language in Ukraine. This echoes in the peace plan - but is mitigated by the fact that Ukraine is only required to comply with EU guidelines on nationality policy.

For Russia, the demanded payment of 100 billion dollars, which is to flow from frozen assets into the reconstruction of Ukraine, is tricky. In Moscow, this is seen as a reparation payment - and therefore an admission of guilt. The Kremlin wants to avoid this interpretation, as it is selling its war as a liberation of the oppressed Russian minority in the neighboring country for propaganda purposes. In the past, Moscow has therefore always threatened to take countermeasures if European countries, where the majority of Russian money is held, confiscate it. The fact that US companies in particular are to benefit from the profits is also likely to anger many Russians.

On the other hand, Russia has to weigh things up: The sum demanded is less than half of the frozen assets - which have been written off for the time being anyway. If the Kremlin sacrifices 100 billion dollars, it could use the rest again and at the same time hope for new international partnerships to boost its own economy, which is increasingly running into difficulties.

As good as none. It has already been Trump's policy in recent months to ignore the European supporters of Ukraine, almost all members of the EU and Nato. The proposal reveals a changed understanding of the transatlantic defense pact. The USA sees itself as a mediator between NATO and Russia - as if it were not the leading nation in the alliance. NATO would be instructed without further ado to scrap its decisions on Ukraine's accession and rule out its inclusion forever. At a summit meeting in Washington in 2024, for example, it was stated that Ukraine's path to NATO membership was "irreversible". The commitment "to an open-door policy" was also reaffirmed.

Could Nato now make concessions anyway? That is not completely out of the question. Trump could threaten that the USA will leave the alliance if the required commitments are not made. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte has not yet publicly assessed the new US plan and is unlikely to do so. Since Trump's return to the White House, he sees it as one of his main tasks to keep the alliance together.

Trump is depriving the EU states of their greatest leverage against Moscow, the frozen Russian state assets. Although the EU also wants to use the billions to support and rebuild Ukraine, it has not yet been able to agree on a procedure. Now Trump wants to use the money together with Russia in Ukraine, and the USA is to make money from it. The Europeans are to pay an additional 100 billion US dollars.

Experts point out that many of the 28 points are imprecisely formulated, contradictory and legally questionable. The proposal to place the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to distribute the electricity equally to Ukraine and Russia has been praised.

The plan aims to defuse the general security conflict with Russia in Europe. Mutual declarations of non-aggression are to serve this purpose. Moscow should even enshrine this in law. However, this diplomatic framework is likely to take time. And the fighting in Ukraine should only end once all parts of the plan have been agreed and implemented.

So the verdict is mixed. The plan is not good, but it is probably the best basis for negotiations to date, wrote British Russia expert Mark Galeotti on X. For German expert Nico Lange from the Munich Security Conference, the criticism outweighs the criticism. He wrote: "The Europeans should stand up straight, put their own proposals for peace in Europe on the table and finally stand up for their future with strength."