"Yes, but...": How Zelensky is rewriting Trump's peace plan, refusing to surrender

Between Trump's ultimatum and a war of attrition: why Kyiv chose the formula "yes, but..."

Kyiv found itself in a situation where a simple “no” to the American peace plan would mean the risk of being left alone with Russia, and a direct “yes” would mean agreeing to a de facto surrender. Volodymyr Zelenskyy chose a third path, which The Wall Street Journal describes as the “yes, but” tactic.^{1 3}. Ukraine does not officially reject Trump's plan, but instead responds with its own vision of peace: with elections, but only after a ceasefire; with discussions about the size of the army, but without weakening it; with Russian participation in the management of the Zaporizhzhia NPP, but under the control of Kyiv and Washington^{1 6}.

Trump's 28 points: what doesn't suit Ukraine

The Trump administration's basic peace plan is a 28-point document that demands sweeping concessions from Ukraine in exchange for a promise to cut off aid if Kyiv refuses.^{8 11}According to WSJ, Axios and European sources, the initial version included the de facto transfer of control over all of Donbas to Russia (including the territories currently held by Ukraine), a sharp reduction in the Ukrainian army, a ban on foreign troops and aircraft on Ukrainian territory, a gradual lifting of a significant part of the sanctions against the Russian Federation and the holding of elections in a short period of time.^{7 8}Some of the points actually reflect the Kremlin's long-standing demands and contradict Kyiv's key "red lines."

Additionally, the plan included provisions on the verification of all international aid to Ukraine, a ban on the deployment of medium- and long-range missiles, and a special status for the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church in the occupied territories.^{7 11}This set of conditions caused a sharp reaction not only in Kyiv, but also in European capitals: diplomatic sources in the EU described the document as “not a peace plan, but a pause for the regrouping of the Russian army.”^{8 12}.

The “yes, but…” tactic: Kyiv’s response to the ultimatum

According to the WSJ, Zelensky and his team, in consultation with European partners, developed an answer that journalists called the “yes, but” formula.^{1 3}The point is that Ukraine does not reject the idea of ​​a peace plan as such, but actually rewrites key points: it agrees to negotiations on elections, the status of some territories, and control over nuclear power plants, but sets strict conditions that make Russian benefits minimal.^{1 6}This allows Kyiv to avoid direct conflict with the White House and at the same time not to accept Moscow's imposed "red lines".

Thus, in response, Ukraine submitted to Washington its own 20-point counter-proposal, agreed upon with a number of European states.^{3 16}. This document, as sources note, focuses on three blocks: security guarantees, ceasefire modalities, and the future status of the occupied territories. The formula is simple: “yes, we are ready to talk about peace; but no, we will not finance this peace with our own territory and disarmament.”^{3 6}.

Elections: Agreed, but not under fire

One of Trump's loudest demands was to hold nationwide elections in Ukraine as soon as possible - in fact, within a few months of the plan being approved.^{1 8}. This creates obvious risks: part of the territory is occupied, millions of voters are abroad, and holding the vote under missile strikes undermines the legitimacy of the result. In response, Zelensky, according to WSJ sources, used the “yes, but” formula: Kyiv does not object to the elections, but insists that they are possible only after a stable ceasefire and a basic level of security^{1 6}.

This position also has a legal dimension: current Ukrainian legislation prohibits nationwide elections during martial law.^{10 16}. To change this rule, a constitutional majority and public consensus are needed, which is not currently the case. For Kyiv, the imposed election schedule looks not as a step towards democracy, but as an attempt by Washington to get a “convenient” date for a peace report on the eve of its own political cycles.

Zaporizhzhia NPP: Russia's permission, but control not from the Kremlin

WSJ draws attention to one of the most delicate points of the Ukrainian response: Zelensky admits that Russia may formally retain a certain role in the operation of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which it currently controls, but insists that real control should belong to Ukraine and the United States, under the patronage of the IAEA.^{1 3}This is a difficult compromise: Kyiv de facto recognizes that a complete and rapid ouster of Russia from the station may be unrealistic in the short term, but is trying to establish a framework within which Moscow will not be able to use the Zaporizhia NPP as a tool of blackmail.

In practical terms, this is a mixed management model: a Ukrainian operator, international supervision, minimization of the Russian military presence, strict security protocols, and a gradual return of control to Ukraine.^{1 6}This is another example of the “yes, but” formula: Kyiv recognizes that some of the partners’ demands and the realities of the front will have to be taken into account, but it seeks not to turn the nuclear power plant into a symbol of lost sovereignty.

Army: do not reduce, but fix the current strength

One of the most dangerous points of Trump's plan for Ukraine is the requirement to significantly reduce the Ukrainian armed forces, effectively halving them, and to abandon a significant part of long-range weapons.^{7 11}. This would leave the country vulnerable to a new attack, especially if Russia uses the pause to rearm. According to the WSJ, in its response, Kyiv agreed to discuss limits on further army growth, but insisted that its size could not be smaller than its current size, taking into account the lessons of a full-scale war.^{1 3}.

Ukrainian diplomats at the UN and in bilateral contacts with partners emphasize: any plan that limits our right to self-defense contradicts the UN Charter and the basic principles of international law.^{7 12}Therefore, Kyiv draws a line: yes, we can talk about the transparency of the structure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, NATO standards, control over certain types of weapons; but no, we cannot forcibly turn a country at war into a demilitarized "gray zone" between the blocs.

The clause on "aid verification", which Kyiv has already rewritten

Even before the current stage of discussions, Ukraine was able to change one of the most toxic points of the American plan. As the WSJ wrote and Ukrainian sources confirmed, the initial version called for a full audit of all international aid to Ukraine - a demand that Kyiv perceived as a suspicion of corruption that undermines trust between allies.^{7 15}During the negotiations, this point was replaced by the concept of a “broad amnesty for all parties for actions during the war”, which is more concerned with the legal consequences of military and political decisions, rather than financial flows.^{7 15}.

This episode shows that there is room for maneuver: the United States is ready to make adjustments to the document if it sees Kyiv's reasoned position and support from European partners.^{3 6}At the same time, it is a reminder that without the active participation of Ukraine and its allies, the initial formulations in such plans are often focused primarily on Washington's domestic political needs, rather than on the realities of the war on the Dnieper or near Kharkiv.

The European factor: an attempt to develop a common "red line"

WSJ and European publications write that, in parallel with the Ukrainian counter-proposal, key European capitals – Berlin, Paris, Warsaw – are also presenting their developments.^{3 12}. The goal is to develop a common position that will not allow Washington and Moscow to negotiate at the expense of Ukrainian territory. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed that Europe, together with Ukraine, has delivered a response to Trump with its own vision, which clearly states the unacceptability of further territorial concessions^{3 16}.

According to press reports, European leaders are trying to strike a balance: on the one hand, they do not want to publicly reject Trump's initiative, understanding its impact on future American policy; on the other hand, it is unacceptable for them that the EU would be an accomplice in an agreement that authorizes the redrawing of borders by force.^{8 12}In this configuration, Ukraine uses European support as an additional lever to turn “yes, but…” into an informal Western consensus.

Washington's pressure: deadline "by Thursday" and real freedom of maneuver

Trump's public statements leave no doubt: he wants a quick result. In an interview with Fox News, the American leader said bluntly that he expects Ukraine to respond to the peace plan "by Thursday," hinting at possible consequences if it is delayed.^{2 8}According to the WSJ, the administration was considering limiting military aid to Kyiv if it “delayed” the approval of the document, and some publications used phrases like “either peace or support.”^{8 12}.

In such a situation, the “yes, but…” tactic becomes for Kyiv not just a diplomatic style, but a way to gain time and maintain a channel of influence on a document that is de facto being written without the participation of Ukraine and the EU.^{3 6}. A complete refusal would give Trump reason to say: “we offered peace, but the Ukrainians refused, so it’s their choice to continue the war.” By formally agreeing to negotiations and at the same time rewriting key points, Zelensky is trying to take this argument away from the White House.

How it is perceived in Ukraine: between dignity and dependence

Domestically, the discussion about Trump's peace plan and Kyiv's response is extremely sensitive. Ukrainian society, which has experienced Bucha, Mariupol, Izyum, and missile winters, reacts painfully to any hints of "peace at the expense of territory."^{10 12}Polls and reports from various regions show that most Ukrainians are not ready to accept an agreement that fixes the loss of new territories or limits the country's ability to defend itself, even if it means a longer war.

At the same time, everyone understands the scale of dependence on American support - military, financial, political. Therefore, the public demand is as follows: to seek diplomacy without degrading dignity and without losing the right to the future^{10 16}Zelensky's "yes, but..." tactic in this sense reflects a balance between two poles - the desire to maintain strategic relations with the US and the refusal to accept the role of a "junior partner" who must tacitly agree to any text sent from Washington.

What could this end up being: a pause, a new edition, or a “plan on the shelf”?

Analysts are considering several scenarios for the development of events. The first is a gradual "dilution" of the most scandalous points of the Trump plan under pressure from Ukraine and Europe, which will lead to a more balanced document, acceptable at least as a framework for further negotiations.^{3 12}The second is a tough reaction from Washington, which may try to impose the original option, accusing Kyiv of unwillingness to "end the war."

The third scenario is that the plan gradually finds itself “on the shelf,” as has happened more than once with previous initiatives, if political circumstances in the US or on the front change.^{8 12}In any case, Zelensky's current tactic is an attempt to ensure that, if the plan is implemented, it is closer to the Ukrainian understanding of a just peace than to the initial formulations dictated from the position of "we pay, so we dictate the conditions."

Sources

1. The Wall Street Journal: Ukraine's Zelensky Attempts to Rewrite Trump's Russia Peace Plan With 'Yes, but' Strategy.
2. The Wall Street Journal: Trump Says He Wants Ukraine's Answer on Peace Plan by Thursday.
3. The Wall Street Journal: Ukraine Pitches Trump on Vision for Peace, but Tensions Over Territory Remain.
4. The Wall Street Journal / Axios / FT: materials on the US 28-point peace plan for Ukraine.
5. Axios, Financial Times: details of the plan leaked – demands for territories, army, sanctions.
6. France 24: Zelensky says ceasefire must be in place before Ukraine can hold elections; updated Ukrainian plan for the US.
7. RBC-Ukraine / Babel: WSJ – Ukraine alters major element of US peace plan; replacing “aid audit” with amnesty formula.
8. WSJ / European media: Trump Peace Plan Demands Major Concessions From Kyiv; European criticism of the plan.
9. European, US think tanks: analysis of the risks of reducing the Ukrainian army and banning foreign troops.
10. International and Ukrainian media: reports on the mood of Ukrainian society regarding territorial concessions and possible peace.
11. European media (The Hill, etc.): EU leaders' reaction to Trump's plan and attempts to agree on a common position.
12. ECFR Analytics, Responsible International Publications: Assessing the Impact of Trump's Plan on the Security Architecture in Europe.
13. US and EU newsrooms: comments on the role of China, Russia and other players in the context of peace initiatives.
14. Ukrainian media: comments from diplomats and military personnel on the unacceptability of restricting the right to self-defense.
15. Official statements by Ukrainian representatives to the UN regarding "red lines" - territory, army, sovereignty.
16. Ukrainian and international agencies: report on the 20-point Ukrainian counter-proposal and joint plan with European countries.