A Letter to Zelenskyy: How Kyiv Should Approach the 28‑Point Peace Proposal

Having reported on Ukraine and Russia for more than three decades — and closely on their recent war for several years — I’ve watched with interest the latest U.S. administration effort to broker a settlement. The reaction from my Ukrainian contacts to the 28‑point proposal has been largely skeptical, with many observers warning the draft leans toward Moscow.

“It’s not worth the paper it’s written on,” one contact told me. Another cautioned, “Any deal would have to include Ukraine…and Europe.” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has responded cautiously, saying he is reviewing the points and seeking a “dignified peace.”

Why this matters

There are intense discussions underway among U.S., Ukrainian and European officials, and even remarks from President Vladimir Putin. The stakes for Europe and the wider world are enormous. If I could send a brief note directly to Mr. Zelenskyy, it would read like this:

Dear Volodymyr,

You are taking the right immediate approach: measured, engaged and unwilling to reflexively reject talks. That would have been counterproductive. You appear grim but determined, and you are communicating with key partners.

My overall advice: pick your fights, avoid getting bogged down by symbolic language, and keep the big picture in view.

I know what your country is living through. Each time I visit Kyiv I go to the same military cemetery outside the city; it grows with every trip and it is heartbreaking.

Assessing the proposal

Some elements of the plan will feel like concessions to Moscow: a pathway back into the G‑8, a phased easing of sanctions, and broad amnesty for actions taken by Russian forces. Those items will be bitter for many Ukrainians, but they do not necessarily determine Ukraine’s long‑term trajectory.

Other clauses are largely rhetorical: prohibiting so‑called “Nazi ideology” in Ukraine or adopting EU‑style language on religious tolerance and minority rights appear to be window dressing for Moscow. Restoring a formal role for the Russian language and the Russian church is uncomfortable for many, but not existential.

At the same time, the draft contains meaningful positives for Kyiv: an explicit reaffirmation of Ukrainian sovereignty, commitments that Russia will not re‑invade, security guarantees, and promises of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Those elements are worth pursuing — but they must be clearly defined and backed by enforceable guarantees from multiple parties.

Red lines and possible compromises

Three provisions are widely viewed in Kyiv as crossing red lines. Each deserves careful handling and creative compromise:

• Donetsk territory and a DMZ: The draft’s treatment of the remaining Donetsk territory — labeling it a demilitarized zone — risks conceding ground Moscow has not fully seized. If a DMZ is discussed, insist on no armed presence from either side, strong security on both flanks, administration by a neutral body, and language that does not imply territorial transfer to Russia.
• Military reductions: A proposal to cap Ukraine’s forces at 600,000 (roughly a one‑third cut) is a major change. It could be workable only if the retained force is well trained, properly equipped and strategically positioned, and if independent mechanisms verify compliance and rapid rearmament if needed.
• No NATO troops: Barring NATO forces from Ukrainian soil would complicate ideas for international peacekeepers. A pragmatic compromise could place multinational contingents around Ukraine’s borders, maintain persistent surveillance, and deploy rapid‑reaction forces under a clear, international mandate.

There are also commercial elements in the plan that favor U.S. and international companies in reconstruction contracts. That is a political and economic reality — part of the price of engaging with the plan’s backers.

Timelines and politics

Deadlines floated by proponents — a Thanksgiving sign‑by date and a 100‑day window tied to an election — appear negotiable. Flexibility on timing is likely available if talks continue in good faith. The 100‑day limit, however, could create domestic political complications for Kyiv, especially given ongoing corruption inquiries that may affect public perception.

Final thought

Realistically, negotiations will falter if parties cling to absolute positions on the main sticking points. Still, the old adage applies: jaw‑jaw is better than war‑war. For Ukrainians who have endured so much, taking a serious shot at a negotiated settlement is worth pursuing — provided Kyiv secures rigorous, verifiable guarantees and protects its sovereignty.

Sincerely,
Greg