Trump-Kushner plan for Ukraine: ultimatum "in a few days" and Kyiv's response

First, Trump, through intermediaries, paints a picture of "peace by Christmas" for Ukraine - with the abandonment of Donbas and the de facto legalization of Russian occupations. Then the same intermediaries fly from Miami to a phone conversation with Zelensky, trying to squeeze a "yes" into a two-hour conversation. And finally, Kyiv calmly but rather harshly sends a written response to Washington with amendments that gently translate all this "peace" from the language of geopolitical fantasies into the language of the Constitution, international law, and real security.

According to Axios, on December 10, the Ukrainian team submitted to the US administration its phased response to the latest version of the American "peace plan", developed in the entourage of Donald Trump and actively lobbied by his son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff.^{1 2} The head of the Ukrainian delegation, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov, sent the document directly to Kushner, who, according to media reports, is acting as the chief negotiator on the US side. The response contains point by point comments and changes designed to make the agreement "at least somehow viable" from Kyiv's point of view.^{2 7}

How the plan was born: 28 points, a "yes" to the Kremlin and a deadline before Christmas

The first outlines of the American "peace plan" appeared in late November, when Western media published details of a 28-point document prepared with the participation of American and Russian officials.^{6 8} The Telegraph, and later Ukrainian sources, wrote that the plan involved the US recognizing de facto Russian control over Crimea and the occupied parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions — effectively legitimizing the already captured territories under the guise of "peace" instead of a "frozen conflict."^{6 8}

According to the Financial Times, quoted by Ukrainian media, Donald Trump himself set an ambitious goal: to achieve the signing of an agreement between Ukraine and Russia "by Christmas," that is, in a matter of weeks, and become the author of a "great peace," which, however, for some reason suspiciously coincided with the Kremlin's key demands.^{1 6} After a round of negotiations in Geneva between Ukraine, the US, and European partners, the plan was reduced from 28 to 19 points, removing some of the most odious wording, but retaining the main problem — territorial concessions in favor of the Russian Federation remained at the heart of the document.^{6 8}

Marathon of calls and visits: Miami, Moscow, Washington

According to Axios and Ukrainian media, the negotiation marathon unfolded in three acts. First, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner held a five-hour meeting with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, where, according to The Telegraph, they offered Moscow a deal with the US recognizing its control over the occupied territories in exchange for a formalized "peace."^{3 6} Then, three days of consultations with Zelenskyy's advisors took place in Miami on the details of the plan, territorial issues, and future "security guarantees."^{3 5}

The culmination was a two-hour phone call on December 6 between Zelensky and the Vitkoff-Kushner tandem, during which, according to Ukrainian sources, American negotiators actually tried to get an unequivocal "yes" from the Ukrainian president to the option of fully transferring Donbas to Russia.^{4 5 9} Trump himself boasted in a parallel interview with Politico that the Russians were "generally happy" with the plan, while his advisers allegedly heard "a lot of positive words" from the Ukrainian team, despite the fact that key territorial issues remained unresolved.^{5 9}

Pressure on Zelensky: "a few days to agree"

The Financial Times and Ukrainian media report that during a telephone conversation on December 6, Witkoff and Kushner gave Zelensky a kind of ultimatum: he has only a few days to decide whether Ukraine agrees to the proposed American version of the deal.^{6 8} The goal is to meet the Christmas deadline so that Trump can demonstrate a "historic achievement" on the foreign policy front, even if it means sacrificing Ukrainian territories, the Constitution, and any remaining faith in Western guarantees.^{5 6}

One of the Ukrainian officials cited by Axios described the impression of the conversation as follows: “It seemed that the US was trying in various ways to sell us Russia’s desire to take all of Donbas — and they really wanted Zelensky to agree to this right during the call.”^{4 5 9} Zelensky himself, according to the same sources, said that he received the updated version of the plan only an hour before the conversation and was physically unable to study it in detail, which noticeably surprised American officials, who insisted that the document had been sent the day before.^{4 9}

What Washington wants: Donbas and "security guarantees"

According to Axios, BBC, and other media outlets, the core of the American plan remains two blocks: territorial concessions and so-called "security guarantees" for Ukraine.^{4 8 10} Russia demands that Ukraine relinquish control over all of Donbas, including areas currently under Kyiv's rule, and also secure for Moscow de facto control over already occupied territories — according to some versions, with de facto recognition of the captured parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson regions.^{4 6 8}

The Ukrainian side, in turn, demands real, not paper, security guarantees: a format that will not repeat the failure of the Budapest Memorandum and will provide for clear commitments from the US and key European allies to assist in the event of new Russian aggression.^{4 8 10} One of the European officials quoted by Axios directly admits that it is still unclear what role the US is ready to take on in the system of guarantees and what it expects from the Europeans - and without this, any "promises of peace" look like a beautiful facade without supporting structures.^{4 10}

Ukrainian red line: "We will not give up territory"

Ukrainian officials and Zelensky himself have repeatedly publicly stated that Ukraine has neither the legal nor the moral right to give up its own territories — the president has spoken about this in numerous interviews and comments, responding both to the proposals of individual Western politicians and to "peace initiatives" from Washington.^{4 8 11} The Constitution of Ukraine directly prohibits the alienation of territory, and therefore any official consent to the transfer of Donbas or other regions to Russia would mean not just political capitulation, but also the destruction of the legal foundation of the state.^{8 11}

According to the BBC and Ukrainian media, Kyiv conveyed this position in a written response to the American plan: Ukraine is ready to discuss the ceasefire schedule, the stages of the withdrawal of Russian troops, the formats of the international border control mission, and the model of security guarantees, but is not ready to grant Russia the right to Ukrainian territories where Ukrainian citizens continue to live.^{8 10 11} In other words: yes to compromises in tactics, no to the rejection of the principle of territorial integrity.

To whom was the reply sent and what was in it?

According to Axios and a number of European media outlets, on December 10, the Ukrainian side submitted a detailed document to the US — a response to the latest version of the "peace plan," written "point by point," with comments and proposed changes.^{1 2 7} Formally, the addressee was the US administration, but the actual recipient was Jared Kushner, who de facto coordinates Trump's unofficial negotiating team on Ukraine, along with Steve Witkoff.^{2 7}

A Ukrainian official quoted by Axios noted that the response contained corrections designed to “make the agreement workable” — a diplomatic euphemism for an attempt to remove the most dangerous points for Ukraine from the document and return the conversation to at least basic compliance with international law.^{1 2} Before sending, Kyiv consulted with European allies — primarily the EU's "big three" (France, Germany, Great Britain), who openly warn about the risk of imposing an agreement on Ukraine that effectively rewards the aggressor.^{7 8}

Europe's position: support for Kyiv without "peace at any cost"

European leaders, according to Axios and the European press, in private conversations assure Zelensky that they will not support an agreement that would directly force Ukraine to give up Donbas or other territories in exchange for paper guarantees of "stability."^{4 10 11} The FT and BBC emphasize: for Paris, Berlin, and London, the recognition of Russian conquests not only destroys the principles of international law, but also creates a dangerous precedent for all of Europe - tomorrow any other aggressions can be "legitimized" in the same way.^{8 10}

At the same time, European capitals are not hiding their concern that the delay in negotiations in Washington on aid packages for Ukraine is increasing the temptation of a "quick peace," even if it is hastily put together on Moscow's terms.^{8 11} That is why key allies are trying to support Kyiv's version of the updated Ukrainian peace plan, which provides for the phased implementation of the decisions of the "peace formula" summits without territorial concessions.^{10 11}

Trump: "Russia has the advantage" and "Zelensky must be a realist"

Against this backdrop, Trump's rhetoric seems like a genre in itself. In interviews with Axios and Politico, he claims that Russia "has the upper hand" on the battlefield and that Zelensky "has to be a realist" by agreeing to a deal in which Ukraine gives up territory in exchange for an abstract "end to the war."^{5 9 12} Trump also claims that his advisers are hearing "a lot of positive things" about the plan from Ukrainian negotiators, and therefore the problem is supposedly in the personal position of the Ukrainian president, who is "delaying" the decision.^{5 9}

In response, Ukrainian and European officials delicately but consistently point out that the main obstacle is not Zelensky's stubbornness, but the very content of the proposal, which in its current form suits the Kremlin much more than Kyiv or its European partners.^{4 8 11} Moreover, British and American analysts directly call the plan, prepared with the participation of Russian and American officials, a “recipe for the next war,” rather than a sustainable peace, as it leaves war crimes unpunished and encourages future aggression through territorial rewards.^{8 13}

Risks for Ukraine: “peace” as a postponed disaster

For Ukraine, the adoption of the plan in its original or close to its original form would mean several catastrophic consequences at once. First, the legalization of the occupation of a significant part of the territory, including regions where the inhabitants deliberately remained under Ukrainian rule and are awaiting liberation, rather than transfer to the protectorate of the aggressor country.^{6 8 13} Secondly, a signal to all future aggressors: it is enough to start a war, seize territories, hold out for a few years - and the world will eventually force the victim to "be realistic" and agree to a new border.^{11 13}

Third, internal destabilization. Any Ukrainian government that signs a document renouncing Donbas or other regions risks losing legitimacy in the eyes of a society that has paid for its defense with thousands of lives and has repeatedly shown its readiness to resist even without external support.^{11 13} This opens the door to political chaos, radicalization, and the very "unstable Ukraine" that Russian propaganda so loves to scare the West with, but no longer as a horror story, but as a reality created by a poorly thought-out "peace."^{11 13}

Ukrainian counterplan: updated "peace formula" without concessions

In parallel with its response to the American document, Kyiv is preparing an updated version of its own peace plan, which it plans to officially present to the White House in order to avoid imposing a "foreign" peace architecture.^{10 11} The BBC and other media outlets report that the Ukrainian proposal will have about 20 points and focus on key elements: the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, restoration of border control, security mechanisms, compensation for damages, and prosecution for war crimes — without any territorial concessions to the aggressor.^{10 11}

The idea is simple: if the West truly wants a sustainable peace, it will have to invest not in a “quick deal” at the cost of someone else’s territory, but in a long-term security architecture where Russia will not be able to simply wait a few years and launch a new offensive from new positions.^{10 11} For Ukraine, such an architecture is a matter of survival, not diplomatic rating, so Kyiv is apparently ready to withstand political pressure until a plan appears on the table that does not look like instructions for the next war.

Sources

1. Ukrainska Pravda / Axios: "Ukraine submits response to US "peace plan""
2. LIGA.net / Axios: "Trump's son-in-law receives Ukrainian response to US peace plan"
3. European Pravda / The Telegraph: materials on the visit of Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow and proposals for the recognition of the occupied territories
4. Ukrainska Pravda / Axios: "US is pressuring Zelenskyy to make territorial concessions within peace plan"
5. Axios: "Trump says Russia has "upper hand" as US pressures Zelensky on peace plan"
6. Babel / FT: "Trump sets new deadline for Zelensky to accept his peace plan"
7. Unione Sarda / European media: report on sending Ukraine's response to the American draft peace plan after consultations with allies
8. BBC News: "Ukraine prepares new peace plan as Zelensky rules out territorial concessions"
9. RBC-Ukraine and other Ukrainian media: materials about US pressure on Ukraine to agree to territorial concessions
10. Polish Radio / international media: analysis of negotiations on security guarantees and the updated Ukrainian peace plan
11. Wikipedia / analytical reviews: chronology of peace initiatives in the Russian-Ukrainian war and Ukraine's position on territorial integrity
12. Kyiv Post and other publications: publications about Trump's public statements and reactions of Ukrainian and European politicians
13. The Atlantic: “The Murky Plan That Ensures a Future War” (criticism of the 28-point draft as a “pseudo-peace plan”)