Ukraine: Where can it retreat in the US plan?

European and Ukrainian negotiators were speaking Sunday (11/23) with officials from the , trying to modify what Washington proposed and which they consider particularly favorable to Russia.

The US is pressing Kiev until Thursday, which is vague and lacks details. The draft incorporates some long-standing Russian demands, while violating Kiev’s clear “red lines” and sidestepping Europe’s security concerns.

US officials describe the plan as a working document, but turning it into something more acceptable to her and her European allies will be a huge diplomatic undertaking.

Those where differences will be extremely difficult to bridge, as well as others where compromise may prove less difficult.

Would Ukraine cede Donetsk?

Most difficult of all is the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the parts of Donetsk province in the east of the country that they currently control.

It’s only the 22d article on the list, but it could very well be the first. This explains the renewed US-Russian push for a peace deal, which would deliver through a diplomatic move something that President Vladimir Putin’s Russian troops have failed to grasp since 2014.

With Russian forces making slow but steady progress on the Donetsk front, President Donald Trump is convinced that a Russian victory there is inevitable.

Concession of territories that Ukrainians have shed so much blood defending is likely to be highly controversial and destabilizing for Ukraine, which also serves the Kremlin’s interests. The tens of thousands of remaining Ukrainians living in the surrendered territory will be displaced.

That would mean Ukraine surrendering its “fortress zone”, which consists of the cities of Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka, which have formed a bulwark against Russian forces since 2014.

The area that Ukraine will leave will become a “neutral demilitarized zone”. But if Russia were to breach this zone in a new attack, the central part of Ukraine, including the cities of Dnipro and Zaporizhia, would be particularly exposed.

Although Zelensky has long accepted that only through diplomacy will Ukraine be able to regain territory already seized by Russia, he has strongly opposed any formal recognition of Russian occupation.

The US plan would include recognizing the areas currently held as “de facto Russian”. On the surface, this is more palatable for Kiev and its European allies than official “de jure” recognition, which would mean that borders can be changed by force, in violation of the principles of international law.

However, according to Marc Weller, director of international law at Chatham House and a professor at the University of Cambridge, the wording “de facto Russian” is more favorable to Putin than “under de facto Russian control”, as is the use of the word “recognition”.

Will Ukraine receive meaningful security guarantees?

The plan says Ukraine will “receive credible security guarantees,” but offers no specific details, while significantly limiting what its allies could offer it.

Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO by changing the alliance’s treaty, while also changing its own constitution to bar membership — two things that will be politically difficult to implement.

NATO countries would not be able to station troops in Ukraine, which would scupper the idea of ​​a European deterrence force or training mission there.

Kiev remains wary of vague promises because of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which offered security assurances from the US and UK but failed to prevent Russian military aggression in 2014 or a full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.

Zelensky has said strong security guarantees are essential in any peace deal, aimed at preventing another Russian invasion. He wants an Article 5-style commitment from Western partners that would oblige them to respond militarily, as well as with tough sanctions against Russia, in the event of future attacks.

Ukrainian and US officials have said there are behind-the-scenes talks about how the West might respond. But anything that doesn’t outline specific steps will likely be rejected outright by Kiev.

Who will receive frozen Russian assets?

The US plan would overturn a proposed European initiative to use frozen Russian assets to create a €140 billion “war reparations” loan for Ukraine, which the EU had hoped to approve next month.

Most of the $300 billion pledged at the start of the Russian full-scale invasion is being held in Europe. However, under the proposal, Washington would receive $100 billion for a US-Ukraine investment vehicle, with half of the profits going to the US. Europe would add another 100 billion and the rest would go to a US-Russia investment scheme.

Even with a peace deal, Ukraine will need massive fiscal support from its European allies and long-term funding to train and equip its armed forces. Most European capitals agree that a compensation loan is the best and cheapest way to provide this assistance. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has strongly promoted the idea, is said to have been particularly incensed by the methodical American assertion.

Should there be a blanket amnesty?

The peace plan provides for a general amnesty for both sides of the war and an agreement to drop any legal claims. Acquitting Russia would in itself be extremely difficult to accept for many Ukrainians who have suffered death, destruction, rape and abduction of children by Russian forces.

Ukrainian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oleksandra Matviychuk said a blanket amnesty and “lack of any negative consequences for aggression” would be Ukrainians’ “biggest disappointment” in the US plan.

It would also remove the legal basis for the European reparations loan, says Yuliya Ziskina of the organization Razom, which supports Ukraine. “If this deal is agreed, the reparations loan becomes legally and financially impossible,” it says.

“Securing the reparations loan is the most important tool Europe has to ensure that any future negotiations take place on terms shaped by clear principles and real security — not by the forced vulnerability of Ukraine.”

Mertz insisted on Sunday that work on the European loan would continue regardless of the US plan, but it is hard to see how the assets could be used twice.

Should the size of the Ukrainian military be reduced?

In principle, limiting the size of the Ukrainian army to 600,000 would constitute an unacceptable violation of the country’s sovereignty. European leaders are adamantly opposed, seeing a strong Ukrainian military as Europe’s best bulwark against Russian aggression.

However, a reduction of a third from the current strength would leave Ukraine with a large and powerful army — almost twice the size of the largest armed force within the EU. It could also allow some soldiers who have been fighting for years to demobilize.

Still, the country’s population will be worried, having suffered two invasions in 11 years by a larger Russian army, especially since the plan does not provide for a similar restriction on Moscow.

Already, some military officials have expressed their opposition to any reduction in the Ukrainian armed forces. “This is immediate preparation for a new invasion and weakening Ukraine to an extent that will not allow it to prepare for retaliation,” said Oleksandr Solonko, a communications specialist in the Ukrainian military and a popular commentator.