Critics Warn Trump’s 28‑Point Ukraine Plan Would Reward Putin and Weaken Kyiv

Recent reporting indicates that President Donald Trump has approved a 28‑point proposal meant to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. According to multiple outlets, the plan—negotiated by U.S. envoys in coordination with a close Vladimir Putin confidant—contains terms that many observers say would substantially favor Moscow while undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and defense capabilities.

Although the administration has not released the proposal publicly, reports describe measures that would require Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, reportedly including full control of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces beyond the areas Moscow currently holds. The package would sharply reduce Ukraine’s armed forces—by some accounts roughly halving them—while not imposing comparable limits on Russia’s military.

Under the reported terms, Kyiv would surrender long‑range weaponry that allows it to strike deep into Russian territory and relinquish other capabilities that sustain its economy and military effort. The United States and other countries would legally recognize Crimea and other occupied Ukrainian territories as Russian, effectively ratifying land grabs made by force and undermining norms that underpin the post‑1945 international order. The proposal reportedly also forbids foreign peacekeepers on Ukrainian soil.

In exchange for those concessions, the package would offer Ukraine what critics describe as weak or unenforceable security guarantees from the United States—drawing comparisons to the largely theoretical assurances Kyiv received after relinquishing Soviet‑era nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Observers contend that the deal’s provisions appear so one‑sided in Russia’s favor that they could have been crafted to suit Moscow’s interests.

Mixed Signals from Washington

For months, the president’s public statements about Ukraine have been inconsistent—sometimes signaling continued U.S. backing for Kyiv, at other times suggesting a desire to press for an immediate settlement. In October, for example, the administration imposed modest sanctions on parts of the Russian oil sector, an action framed as an effort to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. At the same time, Trump resisted broader bipartisan efforts to adopt far tougher measures, including legislation proposed by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal that would enable the United States to penalize countries and companies that do business with Russia.

Recently the president told reporters that the Graham‑Blumenthal bill would be “okay with me,” even as he reportedly prepared to sign off on the 28‑point plan. Critics say that combination of public concessions and private deal‑making offered pro‑Ukraine audiences a measure of hope while concealing preparations to reward Putin.

Risks and Uncertainties

If implemented, the proposal could normalize Russia’s territorial gains without demanding meaningful concessions from Moscow, amounting to a diplomatic rehabilitation of Putin even after a full‑scale 2022 invasion. Ending sanctions and restoring normal economic ties would permit Russia to rebuild its military over time and potentially attempt further aggression when conditions are favorable.

That said, the deal faces significant obstacles. The Trump administration’s internal instability could alter or reverse its course, and European partners and Ukraine itself are not guaranteed to accept terms that ratify Russia’s conquests. Asking Western allies to endorse a settlement that weakens basic post‑1945 norms—respect for borders and the rule of law—would carry serious strategic and moral costs.

Thomas Wright: a noted analyst, has described the shift as a “self‑defeating reversal” on Ukraine, arguing that the proposed settlement would undercut long‑term Western security interests.

Whatever the outcome, the episode clarifies the administration’s priorities: critics say the president appears willing to align the United States more closely with Putin, even if that alignment comes at the expense of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and defensive capability. The central question now is whether Ukraine and its allies can resist a settlement that many view as effectively converting Kyiv into a dependent or vassal state of Moscow.