Leaked 28-Point Plan Sparks Crisis: Pressure on Kyiv to Accept Russia-Aligned Terms

Back-channel talks and private meetings involving President Trump’s special envoy Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner erupted into public controversy this week when a 28-point peace proposal tied to Russia was leaked. The document — widely reported to have been authored principally by Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev — has forced the White House into damage control and intensified pressure on Kyiv to accept terms that mirror many of Moscow’s core demands.

Officials from Washington dispatched senior U.S. Army leaders to Kyiv to press for quick consideration of the draft. Those who traveled reportedly included Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll; Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George; Gen. Chris Donahue, commanding U.S. Army Europe and Africa; Lt. Gen. Curtis Buzzard, leading the Security Assistance Group–Ukraine; and Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer. According to reports, Driscoll warned Ukraine that refusing the deal now could lead to a harsher settlement later: “There’s no such thing as a perfect deal, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later.”

Key provisions in the leaked draft

The draft’s provisions, as outlined in the leak, would make major concessions to Russia, including:

• Prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO (point 7) and barring NATO forces from being stationed in Ukraine (point 8).
• Calling for Russia's reintegration into international institutions (point 13).
• Recognizing Russian control over territories it annexed, including Crimea (point 21).
• Mandating Ukrainian elections within 100 days (point 25).
• Granting “full amnesty” for Russian wartime actions and barring future claims or complaints (point 26).

Point 26 is particularly explosive: by providing broad amnesty for Russian actions during the conflict it would waive legal and political accountability for wartime conduct, a clause Kyiv and many Western lawmakers view as unacceptable.

Reactions and fallout

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the pressure on Kyiv as enormous and framed the decision as a painful choice between preserving dignity and preserving a critical partner. In a national address he warned that accepting the demands could mean “a winter that could be the harshest … a life without freedom, without dignity, without justice,” and urged caution about trusting an adversary that has attacked before.

“The pressure on Ukraine is enormous. And our country may soon be faced with a very tough choice: sacrifice our dignity, or risk losing a key partner.” — President Volodymyr Zelensky

Congressional leaders from both parties criticized the White House posture. Senators warned that the draft would reward aggression and risk empowering President Vladimir Putin’s negotiating position. European capitals likewise called the document a draft requiring amendments; Britain, France and Germany issued a point-by-point counterproposal with deletions and revisions over the weekend.

Observers note that, even with a European counterproposal and reports of a separate 19-point cease-fire draft discussed between the U.S. and Ukraine, Moscow may have little incentive to accept revisions that do not secure its principal goals. From the Russian perspective, the Kremlin appears to believe it can outlast Ukraine’s strikes and grind down Ukrainian resistance.

Why this matters

The central argument advanced by the authors is that the conflict will end only if Russia stops attacking — and that will require credible, sustained support for Ukraine by the U.S. and NATO. They warn that appeasement risks legitimizing aggression and that durable peace depends on equipping Ukraine to prevail or negotiate from strength, drawing analogies to historical instances where steadfast resistance until reinforcements arrived changed outcomes.

Later reporting indicated Dmitriev was the principal author of the leaked draft, reinforcing the view that the document was intended to shift the diplomatic balance and fracture Western unity. The leak’s immediate effect was political disarray: defenders of the draft scrambled to clarify motives while opponents in Washington and Europe urged rejection or major revision.

This analysis was contributed by Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet, who served 30 years as an Army military intelligence officer and led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014, and Mark Toth, who writes on national security and foreign policy.