Analysis of the Core Contents of the Draft Peace Plan Leaked by the United States in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
2025-11-24 16:13:24
The draft contains 28 core provisions, some of which appear to be acceptable to Ukraine, while others are vaguely worded and lack precision.
Ukraine's sovereignty will be "formally confirmed," and Russia, Ukraine, and Europe will sign a "comprehensive and unreserved non-aggression pact," providing Kyiv with strong and credible "security guarantees" and demanding the initiation of provisional elections within 100 days. If the parties take military action against Ukraine again, the draft proposes to initiate a "coordinated and forceful military response," simultaneously reinstating sanctions and terminating the pact.
Although Ukraine is currently in a state of war, presenting objective obstacles to the practical implementation of elections, theoretically, the election process could proceed if a peace agreement is reached. However, regarding security guarantees, the draft does not specify the providers or the specific level of security—a fundamental difference from the rigid commitment in NATO's Article 5 principle of "collective defense," which states that "an attack on any member state is considered an attack on all members." For Kyiv, signing an agreement clearly requires substantial guarantees that go beyond vague wording.
The most controversial proposals in the draft focus on two main aspects: the territorial arrangements related to Ukraine and the adjustment of the size of the armed forces. "The Ukrainian army must withdraw from parts of the Donetsk region currently under its control. This withdrawal zone will be designated as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, and its status will be recognized by the international community. Troops of relevant parties will not be allowed to enter this demilitarized zone."
The arrangements involving the Donetsk "fortress city cluster" including Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka—arena home to at least 250,000 Ukrainians—are simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Ukrainians.
It has taken more than a year for the relevant parties to capture the town of Pokrovsk, and Ukraine is by no means likely to surrender such a strategic location without resistance.
"The size of the Ukrainian armed forces will be limited to 600,000." It is estimated that the active-duty strength of the Ukrainian army in January 2024 will be approximately 880,000, a significant increase from 250,000 at the beginning of the full-scale outbreak of the conflict in February 2022.
While 600,000 troops may seem like a negotiable number in peacetime, such military restrictions are essentially an infringement on Ukraine's sovereignty, and for the parties involved, this number may still be beyond their acceptable range.
Ukraine’s representative, Khristina Khayoveshin, stated clearly at the UN Security Council: “Our red line is clear and unshakeable – whatever its form, we will never recognize any Ukrainian territory temporarily under the control of the parties concerned as our territory. Ukraine will never accept any restrictions on its right to self-defense, the size of its armed forces, or its combat capabilities.”
The draft further proposes that "Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be considered as areas effectively under the jurisdiction of the relevant parties, and the United States will recognize this."
In other words, Ukraine and other countries do not need to legally recognize the relevant jurisdictional status. This statement may provide Kyiv with room for acceptance, as it does not violate the core clause of the Ukrainian Constitution that "the territory is indivisible and inviolable."
In addition, the front lines will remain frozen in the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, and the relevant parties will need to withdraw from their controlled areas in other parts of Ukraine—namely, the northeastern Kharkiv and Sumy regions and the southern Mykolaiv region.
The draft makes a major commitment to Ukraine's long-term strategic positioning: "Ukraine agrees to explicitly include a clause in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO will need to add a specific provision to its charter that it will not admit Ukraine in the future."
"Ukraine is a candidate for EU membership and will receive short-term priority access to the European market during the assessment of this issue."
The feasibility of Ukraine joining NATO in the short term is extremely low, and the stance of relevant parties on Ukraine's EU candidate status has softened somewhat in recent months. While the document appears to secure EU market access for Kyiv, it ignores the independent decision-making desires of the 27 EU member states.
Joining the EU and NATO are both goals explicitly stated in the Ukrainian constitution. Another red line that Khayoveshin emphasized at the United Nations is: "We will never tolerate any violation of national sovereignty, including the core right to choose alliance partners independently."
Other provisions in the draft include: NATO's commitment not to station troops in Ukraine, the deployment of Eurofighter jets in neighboring Poland, and a formal commitment by Kyiv to become a "nuclear-free state." This arrangement clearly conflicts with the agreement monitoring plan previously proposed by the Western "coalition of will" led by Britain and France.
Several provisions in the draft focus on lifting the international isolation of relevant parties, including “supporting their reintegration into the global economic system” and inviting them to rejoin the G8.
Given the current situation, achieving this goal remains highly uncertain: arrest warrants have been issued for the leaders of the relevant parties by the International Criminal Court, and this party was expelled from the G7 after related events in 2014, with the Trump administration's unsuccessful attempt to reinstate it six years later. If countries like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan already held reservations before the full-blown conflict, the likelihood of this happening now is undoubtedly even lower.
Asset freeze disposal plan: The draft reconstruction investment framework led by the United States proposes to freeze $100 billion (equivalent to 87 billion euros or 76 billion pounds) of related assets and invest them in the "US-led reconstruction and investment project in Ukraine". The United States can obtain 50% of the investment returns, and Europe needs to provide an additional $100 billion in reconstruction funds.
This model is consistent with the US-Ukraine mineral cooperation agreement reached earlier this year, essentially representing the economic price the US is demanding for its intervention in the conflict, while the EU faces the prospect of simply bearing enormous costs. In terms of financial scale, this plan may struggle to cover actual needs: the total cost of reconstruction in Ukraine was estimated at $524 billion by early 2024.
Currently, approximately €200 billion in frozen assets are primarily held in custody by the Belgian bank Eurobank. The EU is advancing a plan to use these funds to provide financial and military support to Kyiv. According to the draft, the remaining frozen assets will be managed by a "relevant bilateral joint investment institution"—while the parties involved may recover some funds, the US will again gain direct economic benefits from this.
"This is not the final solution," U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday evening in Geneva, Switzerland, after completing crisis talks with Ukrainian and European negotiating delegations. "The agreement still needs further refinement."
The top U.S. diplomatic official added, "But what is clear is that the negotiations have made substantial progress compared to when they began today and a week ago." He did not disclose the key points of contention.
Rubio also emphasized that any final solution must be approved by all relevant parties, and no public statement has yet been made regarding the progress.
Meanwhile, several media outlets reported that Ukraine's European allies, led by Britain, France, and Germany, had proposed alternative solutions. However, Rubio responded that he was "unaware" of any European counter-proposals against the US plan.
The United States initially planned to push the agreement onto the table according to an “aggressive timeline,” requiring Ukraine to sign it by November 27.
However, after Ukraine's allies expressed clear concerns, Trump subsequently stated that the plan was not a "final proposal" for Kyiv.
Rubio revealed that an agreement may be reached around Thanksgiving.
It is reported that special envoy Kirill Dmitriev held three days of closed-door consultations with Trump's special envoy Steve Vitkov, a detail that has sparked discussion about whether the agreement meets the demands of the parties involved.
Several U.S. senators revealed that Rubio told them the plan was not original to the U.S., but rather reflected the position of a certain party, and was leaked by a representative of that party.
This contradicts the White House's public statement that "the proposal was approved by President Trump and drafted by U.S. officials." Rubio later revised his statement, saying that the peace proposal was "drafted under U.S. leadership."
"This plan provides a strong framework for continued negotiations, taking into account both the opinions of relevant parties and the feedback from Ukraine, both past and present."
The responses from relevant parties have remained cautious so far, but leaders in those parties have indicated that the proposal could serve as a "basic framework" for a peaceful resolution. The relevant territorial arrangements and related clauses (even if set in a demilitarized zone) are a key signal that the proposal is tilting towards the positions of the relevant parties.
However, the freeze clause on the southern front may put pressure on this side – after all, the states of Herson and Zaporozhye have been included in its relevant legal documents, and the clause in the draft that "restricts in stages and lifts restrictions on a case-by-case basis" will most likely be seen by this side as the pace of progress being too slow.
However, the proposal for a "comprehensive amnesty for all parties to the conflict" may be approved by that side, but it is bound to provoke strong opposition in Kyiv and several other European capitals.
The German Foreign Minister stated that the talks between the US and Ukraine in Geneva brought a "decisive success" to Europe.
John Wadpool stated that European-related issues, including the apparent ban on Ukraine joining NATO, have been removed from the 28-point peace plan.
Russia's attacks on Ukraine continued on Sunday as peace talks in Geneva progressed.
Ukraine is participating in this plan because it cannot afford to lose US support.
Several analysts pointed out that the plan did not include any weapons restrictions on the Ukrainian army and defense industry, but only stated that "if Ukraine launches missiles at relevant major cities, the security guarantee agreement will automatically become invalid."
However, the draft does not restrict the further development of Ukraine's indigenously developed long-range weapon systems, such as the Flamingo and Long Neptune missile series.
This side has consistently maintained that the peace plan must eliminate what it identifies as the “root causes of conflict,” with a core element being preventing NATO expansion to the east, and the draft has already made a targeted response to this.
Some of the 28 articles in the draft indirectly echo the claims made by the other side regarding the "rights and interests of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine," but do not explicitly express support for them.
One of the clauses is clearly stated and remains neutral: "Russia and Ukraine agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the legitimate rights of the media and education sectors in both countries."
Another proposal reflecting neutrality is that the electricity output of Zaporizhia, Europe's largest nuclear power plant (currently controlled by relevant parties), will be "equally distributed between Russia and Ukraine."
Transaction related:
Regarding oil prices, if the draft law promotes the easing of tensions between Russia and Ukraine, coupled with the global oversupply of crude oil, the geopolitical risk premium will be reduced, which may suppress the rise in oil prices in the short term.
The draft has not yet been finalized, but oil prices have already begun to react, falling to near recent lows and breaking below the support level of $58.60.
Regarding gold prices, they are sensitive to geopolitical tensions. If peace talks make substantial progress, the cooling of safe-haven demand may put downward pressure on gold prices. Recent price movements show that the peace talks are suppressing gold prices, with prices falling below the upward channel, indicating that the weak oscillation may develop downwards.
November 27th is a key trading point. Prices are already starting to reflect the positive outcome of the talks. If the talks do not succeed on November 27th, the recent decline in oil and gold prices may be corrected upwards.
(US crude oil futures January contract)
(Spot gold daily chart, source: FX678)
At 16:10 Beijing time, the January contract for US crude oil futures was trading at $57.79 per barrel, and spot gold was trading at $4063.41 per ounce.
Ukraine's sovereignty will be "formally confirmed," and Russia, Ukraine, and Europe will sign a "comprehensive and unreserved non-aggression pact," providing Kyiv with strong and credible "security guarantees" and demanding the initiation of provisional elections within 100 days. If the parties take military action against Ukraine again, the draft proposes to initiate a "coordinated and forceful military response," simultaneously reinstating sanctions and terminating the pact.
Although Ukraine is currently in a state of war, presenting objective obstacles to the practical implementation of elections, theoretically, the election process could proceed if a peace agreement is reached. However, regarding security guarantees, the draft does not specify the providers or the specific level of security—a fundamental difference from the rigid commitment in NATO's Article 5 principle of "collective defense," which states that "an attack on any member state is considered an attack on all members." For Kyiv, signing an agreement clearly requires substantial guarantees that go beyond vague wording.
Core disputed clauses: territorial arrangements and military force adjustments
The most controversial proposals in the draft focus on two main aspects: the territorial arrangements related to Ukraine and the adjustment of the size of the armed forces. "The Ukrainian army must withdraw from parts of the Donetsk region currently under its control. This withdrawal zone will be designated as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, and its status will be recognized by the international community. Troops of relevant parties will not be allowed to enter this demilitarized zone."
The arrangements involving the Donetsk "fortress city cluster" including Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhkivka—arena home to at least 250,000 Ukrainians—are simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Ukrainians.
It has taken more than a year for the relevant parties to capture the town of Pokrovsk, and Ukraine is by no means likely to surrender such a strategic location without resistance.
"The size of the Ukrainian armed forces will be limited to 600,000." It is estimated that the active-duty strength of the Ukrainian army in January 2024 will be approximately 880,000, a significant increase from 250,000 at the beginning of the full-scale outbreak of the conflict in February 2022.
While 600,000 troops may seem like a negotiable number in peacetime, such military restrictions are essentially an infringement on Ukraine's sovereignty, and for the parties involved, this number may still be beyond their acceptable range.
Ukraine’s representative, Khristina Khayoveshin, stated clearly at the UN Security Council: “Our red line is clear and unshakeable – whatever its form, we will never recognize any Ukrainian territory temporarily under the control of the parties concerned as our territory. Ukraine will never accept any restrictions on its right to self-defense, the size of its armed forces, or its combat capabilities.”
The draft further proposes that "Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be considered as areas effectively under the jurisdiction of the relevant parties, and the United States will recognize this."
In other words, Ukraine and other countries do not need to legally recognize the relevant jurisdictional status. This statement may provide Kyiv with room for acceptance, as it does not violate the core clause of the Ukrainian Constitution that "the territory is indivisible and inviolable."
In addition, the front lines will remain frozen in the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, and the relevant parties will need to withdraw from their controlled areas in other parts of Ukraine—namely, the northeastern Kharkiv and Sumy regions and the southern Mykolaiv region.
Ukraine's strategic positioning: EU accession arrangements and alliance selection restrictions
The draft makes a major commitment to Ukraine's long-term strategic positioning: "Ukraine agrees to explicitly include a clause in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO will need to add a specific provision to its charter that it will not admit Ukraine in the future."
"Ukraine is a candidate for EU membership and will receive short-term priority access to the European market during the assessment of this issue."
The feasibility of Ukraine joining NATO in the short term is extremely low, and the stance of relevant parties on Ukraine's EU candidate status has softened somewhat in recent months. While the document appears to secure EU market access for Kyiv, it ignores the independent decision-making desires of the 27 EU member states.
Joining the EU and NATO are both goals explicitly stated in the Ukrainian constitution. Another red line that Khayoveshin emphasized at the United Nations is: "We will never tolerate any violation of national sovereignty, including the core right to choose alliance partners independently."
Other provisions in the draft include: NATO's commitment not to station troops in Ukraine, the deployment of Eurofighter jets in neighboring Poland, and a formal commitment by Kyiv to become a "nuclear-free state." This arrangement clearly conflicts with the agreement monitoring plan previously proposed by the Western "coalition of will" led by Britain and France.
Proposal from relevant parties to restore international status
Several provisions in the draft focus on lifting the international isolation of relevant parties, including “supporting their reintegration into the global economic system” and inviting them to rejoin the G8.
Given the current situation, achieving this goal remains highly uncertain: arrest warrants have been issued for the leaders of the relevant parties by the International Criminal Court, and this party was expelled from the G7 after related events in 2014, with the Trump administration's unsuccessful attempt to reinstate it six years later. If countries like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan already held reservations before the full-blown conflict, the likelihood of this happening now is undoubtedly even lower.
Asset freeze disposal plan: The draft reconstruction investment framework led by the United States proposes to freeze $100 billion (equivalent to 87 billion euros or 76 billion pounds) of related assets and invest them in the "US-led reconstruction and investment project in Ukraine". The United States can obtain 50% of the investment returns, and Europe needs to provide an additional $100 billion in reconstruction funds.
This model is consistent with the US-Ukraine mineral cooperation agreement reached earlier this year, essentially representing the economic price the US is demanding for its intervention in the conflict, while the EU faces the prospect of simply bearing enormous costs. In terms of financial scale, this plan may struggle to cover actual needs: the total cost of reconstruction in Ukraine was estimated at $524 billion by early 2024.
Currently, approximately €200 billion in frozen assets are primarily held in custody by the Belgian bank Eurobank. The EU is advancing a plan to use these funds to provide financial and military support to Kyiv. According to the draft, the remaining frozen assets will be managed by a "relevant bilateral joint investment institution"—while the parties involved may recover some funds, the US will again gain direct economic benefits from this.
Nature of the draft: Not a final plan; negotiations are still ongoing.
"This is not the final solution," U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday evening in Geneva, Switzerland, after completing crisis talks with Ukrainian and European negotiating delegations. "The agreement still needs further refinement."
The top U.S. diplomatic official added, "But what is clear is that the negotiations have made substantial progress compared to when they began today and a week ago." He did not disclose the key points of contention.
Rubio also emphasized that any final solution must be approved by all relevant parties, and no public statement has yet been made regarding the progress.
Meanwhile, several media outlets reported that Ukraine's European allies, led by Britain, France, and Germany, had proposed alternative solutions. However, Rubio responded that he was "unaware" of any European counter-proposals against the US plan.
The United States initially planned to push the agreement onto the table according to an “aggressive timeline,” requiring Ukraine to sign it by November 27.
However, after Ukraine's allies expressed clear concerns, Trump subsequently stated that the plan was not a "final proposal" for Kyiv.
Rubio revealed that an agreement may be reached around Thanksgiving.
The draft's alignment with the core demands of relevant parties
It is reported that special envoy Kirill Dmitriev held three days of closed-door consultations with Trump's special envoy Steve Vitkov, a detail that has sparked discussion about whether the agreement meets the demands of the parties involved.
Several U.S. senators revealed that Rubio told them the plan was not original to the U.S., but rather reflected the position of a certain party, and was leaked by a representative of that party.
This contradicts the White House's public statement that "the proposal was approved by President Trump and drafted by U.S. officials." Rubio later revised his statement, saying that the peace proposal was "drafted under U.S. leadership."
"This plan provides a strong framework for continued negotiations, taking into account both the opinions of relevant parties and the feedback from Ukraine, both past and present."
The responses from relevant parties have remained cautious so far, but leaders in those parties have indicated that the proposal could serve as a "basic framework" for a peaceful resolution. The relevant territorial arrangements and related clauses (even if set in a demilitarized zone) are a key signal that the proposal is tilting towards the positions of the relevant parties.
However, the freeze clause on the southern front may put pressure on this side – after all, the states of Herson and Zaporozhye have been included in its relevant legal documents, and the clause in the draft that "restricts in stages and lifts restrictions on a case-by-case basis" will most likely be seen by this side as the pace of progress being too slow.
However, the proposal for a "comprehensive amnesty for all parties to the conflict" may be approved by that side, but it is bound to provoke strong opposition in Kyiv and several other European capitals.
Latest update and summary:
The German Foreign Minister stated that the talks between the US and Ukraine in Geneva brought a "decisive success" to Europe.
John Wadpool stated that European-related issues, including the apparent ban on Ukraine joining NATO, have been removed from the 28-point peace plan.
Russia's attacks on Ukraine continued on Sunday as peace talks in Geneva progressed.
Ukraine is participating in this plan because it cannot afford to lose US support.
Several analysts pointed out that the plan did not include any weapons restrictions on the Ukrainian army and defense industry, but only stated that "if Ukraine launches missiles at relevant major cities, the security guarantee agreement will automatically become invalid."
However, the draft does not restrict the further development of Ukraine's indigenously developed long-range weapon systems, such as the Flamingo and Long Neptune missile series.
This side has consistently maintained that the peace plan must eliminate what it identifies as the “root causes of conflict,” with a core element being preventing NATO expansion to the east, and the draft has already made a targeted response to this.
Some of the 28 articles in the draft indirectly echo the claims made by the other side regarding the "rights and interests of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine," but do not explicitly express support for them.
One of the clauses is clearly stated and remains neutral: "Russia and Ukraine agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the legitimate rights of the media and education sectors in both countries."
Another proposal reflecting neutrality is that the electricity output of Zaporizhia, Europe's largest nuclear power plant (currently controlled by relevant parties), will be "equally distributed between Russia and Ukraine."
Transaction related:
Regarding oil prices, if the draft law promotes the easing of tensions between Russia and Ukraine, coupled with the global oversupply of crude oil, the geopolitical risk premium will be reduced, which may suppress the rise in oil prices in the short term.
The draft has not yet been finalized, but oil prices have already begun to react, falling to near recent lows and breaking below the support level of $58.60.
Regarding gold prices, they are sensitive to geopolitical tensions. If peace talks make substantial progress, the cooling of safe-haven demand may put downward pressure on gold prices. Recent price movements show that the peace talks are suppressing gold prices, with prices falling below the upward channel, indicating that the weak oscillation may develop downwards.
November 27th is a key trading point. Prices are already starting to reflect the positive outcome of the talks. If the talks do not succeed on November 27th, the recent decline in oil and gold prices may be corrected upwards.
(US crude oil futures January contract)
(Spot gold daily chart, source: FX678)
At 16:10 Beijing time, the January contract for US crude oil futures was trading at $57.79 per barrel, and spot gold was trading at $4063.41 per ounce.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
