Ukraine's Moment of Truth: Inside the November 2025 Peace Proposal Designed to Fail

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on November 26, 2025.

After nearly four years of relentless warfare, Ukraine faces an existential choice that could determine not only the outcome of the current conflict but the nation's very survival. In November 2025, Ukrainian authorities received a twenty-eight-point peace proposal drafted in secret by envoys from Russia and the United States, with Ukraine and its European allies entirely excluded from the process. The document reads less like a negotiated settlement than a diplomatic wish list lifted directly from the Kremlin's war aims—a blueprint that would cede roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, slash its military capacity to levels that invite future aggression, and constitutionally prohibit the security guarantees that might prevent a second Russian invasion. Washington's message arrived with unmistakable clarity: accept the deal unchanged, or face abandonment. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy articulated the impossible dilemma in stark terms: "Now Ukraine may find itself facing a very difficult choice: Either loss of dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner." The stakes extend far beyond Ukraine's borders. This moment will determine whether territorial conquest can be legitimized through manufactured peace processes, whether great powers can dictate terms to smaller nations over their heads, and whether the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe will survive intact. What unfolds in the coming days may reshape the balance of power on the European continent for a generation.

Key Takeaways

The November 2025 peace proposal was drafted exclusively by Russian and American envoys without Ukrainian or European input, creating a framework that heavily favors Russian territorial and strategic objectives while systematically weakening Ukraine's defensive capabilities.
Ukraine would be forced to cap its military at 600,000 troops while Russia maintains 2.4 million, surrender one-fifth of its territory including unconquered areas, and constitutionally prohibit NATO membership—creating conditions that would enable a future Russian invasion.
Washington threatened to cut all weapons and intelligence support unless Ukraine signed within one week, with Trump initially setting a Thanksgiving Day 2025 deadline before walking back under bipartisan domestic pressure and fierce European opposition.
The Geneva talks on November 23, 2025 produced a European counter-proposal raising Ukraine's troop cap to 800,000, eliminating the NATO expansion ban, and demanding stronger security guarantees—but Russia appears likely to reject these modifications entirely.
Russian insiders and the Institute for the Study of War assess that Moscow's true objective is not peace but severing the U.S.-Ukraine alliance permanently, exploiting Trump's frustration to engineer American disengagement and create conditions for eventual Russian military victory.
Europe cannot currently sustain Ukraine's defense without American support, and if Washington disengages, Ukraine faces either capitulation under terms guaranteeing future conquest or battlefield collapse—making this moment existential for Ukrainian sovereignty and European security architecture.

The Architecture of Capitulation: Inside the Twenty-Eight Points

Before examining the specific provisions of the peace proposal presented to Ukraine in November 2025, one critical piece of context demands attention: every clause, every territorial concession, and every military restriction must be evaluated against the distinct possibility of a second Russian invasion. This is not abstract speculation. Ukrainian and European leaders, alongside numerous international conflict experts, have warned for years that Russia's strategic objective remains unchanged—to destroy Ukraine's sovereign government, erase Ukrainian national identity, and either annex the country outright or install a compliant puppet regime. Russia demonstrated its capability in the war's opening phase during February and March 2022; its failure to capture Kyiv stemmed from avoidable logistical failures, not insufficient military strength. A peace agreement that establishes favorable terms for Moscow while systematically dismantling Ukraine's defensive capabilities could provide Russia with exactly what it needs: time to rest and retrain forces, rebuild troop columns, and develop a more competent invasion plan before striking again. The draft proposal emerged from secretive closed-door meetings between American presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterpart during November 2025. Ukraine and its European allies received no advance notice that negotiations were even occurring. The document comprises twenty-eight individual points that, while not formally published at the time of initial reporting, circulated widely enough among the global press to permit detailed analysis. Critically, the proposal was not initially presented as a starting point for further negotiation. As Donald Trump stated bluntly on Friday, November 22, 2025: "He's going to have to approve it"—referring to Zelenskyy. The foundational elements establish the basic framework: an immediate ceasefire with both sides withdrawing to predetermined positions, creating a legally binding agreement under international law. Implementation would be overseen by a "Board of Peace" with Trump at its head—a structure similar to arrangements applied to the Gaza conflict. The United States would moderate dialogue between Russia and NATO, despite being a NATO member itself rather than a neutral arbiter. The parties would work toward what the document calls a "total and complete comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe." One provision carries particularly ominous implications: "all ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered resolved." The proposal never specifies what those ambiguities are. The territorial provisions reveal the proposal's true character. The Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk—including substantial areas Russia has never conquered—would be recognized as de facto Russian territory, along with Crimea, annexed in 2014. Ukraine would surrender critical defensive positions, including the land that once comprised the city of Pokrovsk, plus the major urban centers of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, without firing another shot. The United States would recognize Russia's territorial claims, though the document describes these areas as "a neutral demilitarized buffer zone" that "Russian forces will not enter." In Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, territorial control would freeze at the current line of contact, granting Russia recognition and control of all occupied territory. Outside these four eastern oblasts and Crimea, Russia would relinquish scattered pockets of territory along the Ukrainian border. The deal includes "the expectation that Russia will not invade its neighbors"—an expectation that, as subsequent provisions make clear, carries no enforcement mechanism whatsoever.

Asymmetric Constraints: Ukraine Disarmed, Russia Unbound

The restrictions imposed on Ukraine extend far beyond territorial concessions, creating a security architecture designed to leave the country vulnerable. Ukraine would be required to cap its armed forces at 600,000 troops—a dramatic reduction from its current strength of 900,000 active-duty personnel, 1.2 million reservists, and 100,000 paramilitaries. Russia, which Putin ordered in September 2024 to expand to nearly 2.4 million troops including 1.5 million on active duty, would face no comparable restrictions. The asymmetry is not incidental; it is the proposal's defining feature. Ukraine would be compelled to enshrine in its constitution a permanent prohibition on NATO membership, while NATO would pass bylaws formally excluding Ukraine from future accession. The proposal further stipulates that NATO must agree not to station troops in Ukraine—language sufficiently vague that Russia could easily interpret any coalition of willing nations as a violation, providing Moscow with a pretext to declare the ceasefire void and resume hostilities. Ukraine would be forced to hold nationwide elections within 100 days of signing, ensuring both that Zelenskyy's term would end and that voting would occur during the chaos of an immediate post-conflict period. This timeline would provide fertile ground for Russia to deploy its well-documented tools of election interference and manipulation. Finally, Ukraine would commit to remaining a non-nuclear state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—though Ukraine is already party to the NPT, and despite occasional speculation in analytical circles, the country was never realistically positioned to develop nuclear weapons while Putin's regime endures. The restrictions nominally imposed on Russia pale in comparison. Russia would re-engage with the United States on nuclear non-proliferation, continuing efforts already underway following the 2023 suspension of the New START Treaty. Russia would also pass laws to "legislatively enshrine a non-aggression policy towards Europe and Ukraine." Unlike Ukraine's constitutional amendment requirement, this would be ordinary legislation—and in Putin's Russia, laws passed with presidential support one day can be rescinded the next. More fundamentally, such laws only constrain Russian behavior to the extent Russia voluntarily constrains itself. Putin and his allies could mass troops on the newly redrawn Ukrainian border and repeal any such law at the moment of invasion, if they bothered to repeal it at all. NATO would also accept significant constraints. Beyond the prohibition on Ukrainian membership, the alliance would be barred from any future expansion whatsoever—language clearly intended to extend beyond Ukraine to encompass any potential member state. Europe would commit to stationing fighter jets in Poland as a security guarantee to Ukraine, a provision that carries multiple troubling implications. It places advanced air power at Ukraine's far western edge, meaning front-line positions in any future conflict would be at or beyond operational range without aerial refueling, and targets deep in Russian territory would be inaccessible. It also implies that aircraft defending Ukraine would be European, not American—a detail that becomes significant when examining U.S. security guarantees. Russia would enjoy substantial benefits from the arrangement. It would be reintegrated into the global economy and invited back to the G8 forum, currently the G7 in Russia's absence. It would receive phased sanctions relief and enter multiple new partnerships with the United States, including a security task force where Russia and America would jointly "promote and enforce compliance" with the deal—with Ukraine excluded—plus long-term economic agreements covering energy, resource extraction, data centers, rare-earth minerals, and artificial intelligence. Russia would gain a fifty-percent share of all power generated at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, under Russian control since 2022. All parties would receive "full amnesty for wartime actions during the war and agree not to pursue claims or further settle grievances"—effectively excusing Russian atrocities in places like Bucha, the notorious family-separation and child re-education programs, torture and abuse of prisoners of war, and other documented war crimes.

The Ultimatum: Washington's Threat of Abandonment

Even before the full text of the peace proposal circulated among international media during the week of November 18-22, 2025, it became clear that the deal was not intended to favor Ukrainian interests. Experts and policymakers noted that any proposal drafted through conversations between American and Russian envoys, with no Ukrainian or European involvement, would likely prove unacceptable to Kyiv. But before the document's full implications became public, the United States was already making clear that Ukraine was expected to accept unconditionally. According to sources speaking to Reuters, the United States threatened a complete cutoff of weapons shipments and intelligence sharing unless Ukraine signed the deal within one week. The same sources reported that "Kyiv was under greater pressure from Washington than during any previous peace discussions." The United States dispatched a military delegation to Kyiv, where the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine confirmed that Washington was pursuing an "aggressive timeline" to conclude the agreement. According to American sources, Ukraine attempted to reframe the deal as a starting point for future negotiations, but these efforts appeared to make little impact. Trump's statement bears repeating: "He's going to have to approve it." Speaking to FOX News on Friday, November 22, Trump added: "They will lose in a short period of time. You know so. They're losing land. They're losing land." When asked on Saturday what would happen if Ukraine and Zelenskyy ultimately rejected the proposal, Trump responded: "Then he can continue to fight his little heart out." Yet Trump's initial forcefulness appeared to waver under intense domestic and international pressure. The announcement and leaked draft met fierce opposition from European leaders and bipartisan pushback from high-ranking American legislators. Even within his own party, prominent voices condemned the proposal. Republican Senator Thom Tillis stated: "if Administration officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace, then the President ought to find new advisers." Former Senate leader Mitch McConnell observed: "Putin has spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool." Late Saturday, November 23, Trump attempted to walk back perceptions that this represented an immediate, make-or-break moment for Ukraine. In a statement to reporters, Trump claimed the deal was "not my final offer"—a clear retreat from the White House's initial position. When first presented, the deal came with a Thursday deadline: Thanksgiving Day in the United States, November 28, 2025, a convenient moment for Trump to deliver a rhetorical victory to domestic supporters. For Ukraine and its soldiers on the front lines, improving the quality of Donald Trump's Thanksgiving is utterly irrelevant. Despite moderating his stance on the Thanksgiving deadline, Trump doubled down on justifications for pushing toward an immediate end to the war, framing the issue in seemingly personal terms. Writing on his social media platform Sunday in characteristic all-caps: "UKRAINE 'LEADERSHIP' HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS." In the same statement, Trump criticized European nations for purchasing Russian oil—though only Hungary and Slovakia, nations with relatively Trump-friendly leaders, currently receive imported Russian gas. He attacked his predecessor Joe Biden for sending Ukraine weapons and money without charge, and reiterated his long-held claim that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had he been president when the war began in February 2022. It was a return to positions Trump held consistently on the campaign trail and has periodically reasserted when the Ukraine conflict proves frustrating. The pressure from Washington arrives at a moment of profound weakness for Kyiv. On the front lines during November 2025, Ukraine faces immense pressure maintaining its foothold in Pokrovsk while battling across other sections of the Donbas. The nation confronts a desertion crisis, with an estimated forty thousand people leaving the military each month—most fleeing from training. Ukraine approaches another harsh winter while enduring relentless Russian attacks on energy infrastructure, clearly intended to place the civilian population at risk of freezing during the coldest months. Worst of all, Kyiv is embroiled in a major corruption scandal of sufficient magnitude to justify both the Ukrainian public and European allies losing faith in Zelenskyy's administration. Ukraine was already in its weakest position in years before this peace proposal began circulating—and Washington and Moscow both know it. According to early polling, the Ukrainian public despises the proposal, with seventy-five percent strongly opposed and seventy percent believing Russia would attack again if the deal were signed. But the larger issue remains: if Ukraine could ever be forced to capitulate under threat of abandonment and collapse, this would be the moment.

Europe's Counteroffensive: The Geneva Talks and Modified Terms

Despite the international pressure facing Ukraine and the difficulty of its battlefield position, the story remains unfinished. Ukraine retains the ability to advocate for its own interests, and while it cannot force the United States to completely reverse course, it can draw a line and refuse to hand Russia the keys to a future invasion. If Ukraine plays its cards correctly, it may bring the United States back on side, returning Washington to the state of exasperation with Moscow that Trump was expressing hardly a month ago. For Ukraine to succeed in that effort, it requires help from the European Union, and that assistance appears forthcoming. European leaders were stunned by Washington's initial proposal. Most stayed off the record publicly but, according to reports, delivered harsh criticism in private. Speaking to Politico.eu, one senior European Union politician offered: "Witkoff needs to see a psychiatrist," while a former French official assessed: "This proposal is likely to be rejected by everyone." When another EU official was asked anonymously about the proposal, that person reportedly just started swearing. Publicly, world leaders worked to engage the Trump administration as quickly as possible to pull Washington back from the brink. During the G20 summit in Johannesburg during the week of November 18, 2025, NATO leaders Emmanuel Macron of France, Keir Starmer of Britain, Friedrich Merz of Germany, Mark Carney of Canada, and Alexander Stubb of Finland met with EU head Ursula von der Leyen and assembled the early foundations for weekend talks. Those discussions took place in Geneva on Sunday, November 23, 2025, bringing together senior Ukrainian officials and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. During the conference, EU leaders reiterated positions taken immediately after the deal's announcement: that Ukraine's borders cannot be changed by force, that its military strength cannot be diluted to the point of vulnerability to second attack, and that given Europe's substantial contributions to Ukraine and the clear strategic relevance of a ceasefire, Europe must consent to any peace deal before it is finalized. Europe has recognized this as a make-or-break moment for Kyiv, understanding that failure to hold the line will reset the balance of power on the European continent for the first time since the Cold War. Simultaneously, European officials and independent analysts have had to consider an uncomfortable possibility: that even if this deal is not intended as an accord Ukraine cannot refuse, it might be designed to help the United States disengage from the Ukraine war permanently. Washington has issued Ukraine a proposal that, rightly or wrongly, it claims represents the very best it can offer and the best chance to end the war. Russia has, by all outward indicators, agreed to the deal in principle provided it remains unchanged. Ukraine is left with the burden of refusal, making it far easier for Washington to shrug and say, "Well, we tried." Washington pulls up stakes, Europe responds with the strongest condemnations it can muster, and Washington offers something along the lines of: "we've been telling you to increase defense spending, so if you think Ukraine is so important for continental defense, you can pay for its war." The problem is stark: Europe, in its current form, is not ready to support Ukraine without the United States unless Ukraine's defense dramatically changes. For Ukraine to continue its current fight, Europe is not enough—and Washington knows it. As of Sunday evening, November 23, 2025, Kyiv time, there had been some progress toward a better deal through the Geneva talks. Speaking to the global press, Ukraine's lead negotiator Rustem Umerov expressed that several rounds of group discussions had occurred between his delegation, the Americans, and the rest of Europe. Umerov stated: "The current version of the document, although still in the final stages of approval, already reflects most of Ukraine's key priorities." Zelenskyy spoke online about the talks, noting: "we all need a positive outcome," and "the bloodshed must be stopped, and we must ensure that the war is never reignited." Speaking from the G20 summit in South Africa, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz—a key leader in NATO and the European Union—expressed that an agreement by Thursday was highly unlikely given the differences between the two sides. Merz stated: "Wars cannot be ended by major powers over the heads of the countries affected." A slower and more comprehensive negotiating process tends to produce better outcomes regardless of the nations or conflict in question. Hammering out a twenty-eight-point peace plan in mere days would be difficult even if Russian and Ukrainian positions were far better aligned than they are. The Geneva talks produced a counter-proposal from Europe's E3—Britain, France, and Germany—that substantially modifies the initial twenty-eight points. Elements like the non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO, plus resolution of prior ambiguities, remain, while the new proposal eliminates both the clause prohibiting NATO expansion and the meaningless "expectation" that Russia will not invade its neighbors—something everybody has expected of Russia since before 2014, though international expectation has proved useless. The Europe-endorsed deal raises the Ukrainian military cap to 800,000 troops in peacetime with implied potential for wartime expansion; it replaces most items where the United States fills certain functions with the understanding that NATO will fill those functions collectively; and it reiterates that Ukrainian NATO membership depends on a consensus that does not currently exist. It stipulates that NATO will not permanently station troops in Ukraine during peacetime under its own command—leaving the door open for a coalition of the willing—and demands U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine mirroring NATO's Article 5, which Ukraine would forfeit by invading Russia. The new draft calls for Ukraine to be "fully reconstructed and compensated financially, including through Russian sovereign assets that will remain frozen until Russia compensates damage to Ukraine," while the joint security task force monitoring the ceasefire will now include Europeans and Ukrainians. Ukraine still agrees to be a non-nuclear power and respect EU rules on religious and linguistic protections, but all territorial negotiations now start at the current line of contact, and Ukraine maintains its commitment not to attempt territorial recapture by force. There is no immunity for wartime acts, and while Ukraine must hold elections as soon as possible, there is no hard deadline. It is a vastly better deal from Ukraine's perspective—with one key challenge. Just as the constraints and stipulations of the initial deal were unacceptable to Ukraine, the constraints and stipulations of this deal are certain to be unacceptable to Russia.

The Kremlin's Gambit: Engineering American Disengagement

After the Geneva meeting on November 23, 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the "progress" made through negotiations, describing them as the "best so far in this entire process, going back to when we first came to office in January." Those sentiments echoed Ukrainian head negotiator Andriy Yermak, who hailed "very good progress" in "moving forward to the just and lasting peace Ukrainian people deserve." But these remain statements by negotiators tasked with hammering out a proposal that can be shown to Washington and Moscow. All that progress and optimism can evaporate if Trump, Putin, or both decide to reject this new proposal out of hand. This is far from the first attempt to reach a diplomatic settlement in Ukraine, and the most important elements of Russian and Ukrainian positions remain fundamentally unchanged compared to prior negotiation rounds. While it is not impossible that this could turn out acceptably for Ukraine, there are numerous ways for this process to go wrong and relatively low likelihood that Ukraine and Europe will stick the landing. The potential failure modes are extensive. Ukraine, the United States, and Europe could simply fail to reach terms around the current deal, with the United States then taking the opportunity to disengage from Ukraine completely or dramatically reduce involvement. The United States could be convinced to bring Ukraine's modified peace terms to Russia, only for Russia to react with fury and use rejection of their ideal agreement to justify doubling down on the war effort—especially attacks against energy infrastructure. Or by trying to get the United States to bring a better proposal to Russia, Moscow could gain a chance to manipulate the situation—and Trump's enduring fondness for Vladimir Putin—to get the United States to disengage from Ukraine even more forcefully than it otherwise would have. After these talks, Ukraine and Europe have worked with Rubio's delegation to create a substantially improved proposal, but that does not mean Trump or Putin will necessarily be grateful. This is as much a chance for them to throw up their hands and declare peace impossible as it is a chance to move toward conflict resolution. It bears emphasis: this entire draft proposal was Russia's idea. The initial deal essentially comprised Russia's terms, was immensely favorable to Russian interests, and, if outside analysis is correct, portions of the text were adopted verbatim from the Russian original. Vladimir Putin and his inner circle may be immensely corrupt and brutally authoritarian, invested in an entirely unjustifiable war of expansion—but they are not stupid. Russia has proved completely unwilling to budge on its terms to end the war, but it harbors no illusions that after nearly four years of all-out fighting, Ukraine will simply wake up one day and see Russia's point of view. If Washington were to somehow pressure Ukraine so strongly that it accepted the original peace proposal as written, Putin would of course be delighted—but that is probably not Moscow's plan. Russia must have anticipated that Ukraine and Europe would react poorly, and that it was at least somewhat likely Washington would agree to amend the deal in subsequent negotiations. That is not a surprise—so the real question is what the Kremlin hoped to achieve after these talks began. The true goal may be to sever the U.S.-Ukraine connection permanently. Reports have begun to circulate regarding Russia's actual objectives. According to analysis by the Institute for the Study of War published November 21, 2025, Russian insiders signaled to global sources that the Kremlin does not even support its own version of the peace proposal because even that draft was too lenient toward Ukraine. Per the ISW, one well-placed Russian source alleged that according to the Kremlin, the initial proposal was too generous with security guarantees for Kyiv, too generous with the personnel cap on Ukraine's military, and should not have included the possibility that Russian frozen assets could be used for anything except returning them to Russia. According to another source, Putin is in no rush to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine—it is Trump trying to rush everything along. Publicly, Putin continues to emphasize that Russia will achieve all its war goals through military means, while the Kremlin insists that victory in Ukraine is inevitable. Prominent leaders in the Russian State Duma have derided the deal before the Russian public, insisting it cannot lead to real peace and that anything short of Russia's "unequivocal victory on the front" would be insufficient. Their public statements are hardly accidental, and the Kremlin would not allow these messages to circulate unless they represented a stance Russia was willing to back up before its own people. If Russia truly intended for this peace proposal, seemingly written by its own representative, to lead to a ceasefire, its public and private posture toward the agreement would make no sense. That is not what is happening. Russia sees the combination of factors before it: Washington's rush to conclude a deal, Ukraine's flagging domestic situation, Europe's limited ability to compensate if Washington stepped out. The U.S.-Russia peace proposal appears designed to exploit that situation. The deal provides Washington—provides Trump—with an outlet for frustration with Kyiv, giving Trump an opportunity to believe he has tried everything, his envoys have done their best, and those Ukrainians simply will not accept the truce. The deal forces Ukraine and its European allies to repudiate the proposal in its initial form as forcefully and quickly as possible—and Russia understands how Trump and his allies tend to react when a deal they propose is forcefully repudiated. Russia knows that between Ukraine's desertion crisis and corruption scandal, it is harder for Washington to justify believing in Kyiv than ever before. The link between Washington and Kyiv was already fragile, and for Moscow, this is a chance to sever that link permanently—or at least until there is a transition of power in the United States. Once that connection has been cut, Russia genuinely has a chance to find its way toward battlefield victory. Europe can continue supplying military assistance and even purchase weapons from the United States to send toward the front lines, but by itself that will not be enough. Russia faces mounting challenges that will bite within the next year or two, but they have not really set in yet, and Russia has sufficient available reinforcements that it may believe short-term military successes are achievable. The war in Ukraine today is what it has always been: a brutal, desperate war of attrition where both sides have done everything in their power to push each other to the brink. Ukraine has held out this long and could hold out longer with full NATO alliance support. But if the United States disengages entirely, Ukraine's ability to continue fighting in the manner it has been fighting will be in serious jeopardy. Europe is not ready to make up the gap, at least not yet, and Russia knows it.

The Precipice: What Hangs in the Balance

For now, Ukraine remains defiant. Speaking to his nation ahead of the talks on Saturday, November 22, 2025, while commemorating the 1930s Great Famine that killed millions of Ukrainians under Josef Stalin, Zelenskyy told his people: "We are once again defending ourselves against Russia, which has not changed and is once again bringing death. We defended, defend, and will always defend Ukraine. Because only here is our home. And in our home, Russia will definitely not be the master." But what Zelenskyy did not say matters just as much. Ukraine could be days away from permanent abandonment by its most important global ally, in a manipulated diplomatic breakdown that Russia appears to have engineered in ways that America's leadership either does not understand or, worse, wants to happen. The implications extend far beyond Ukraine's immediate survival. If this peace proposal succeeds in its apparent objective—severing American support for Ukraine—it will establish a template for future territorial aggression. The message to authoritarian regimes worldwide would be unmistakable: wars of conquest can be legitimized through manufactured peace processes that exclude the victim, impose asymmetric constraints, and exploit great power fatigue. The precedent would reshape international norms around sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the circumstances under which the international community will defend nations under attack. For Europe, the stakes are existential in a different sense. The continent faces the prospect of a revanchist Russia emboldened by success in Ukraine, having demonstrated that sustained aggression can break Western resolve. European leaders understand that if Ukraine falls, they will confront a Russia that has learned valuable lessons about Western decision-making, rebuilt its military capabilities during a favorable peace, and positioned itself on NATO's doorstep with renewed confidence. The security architecture that has preserved peace in Europe since the Cold War would be fundamentally compromised, forcing a wholesale reconsideration of defense postures, military spending, and the viability of collective security arrangements. The coming days will determine whether Ukraine can navigate this impossible situation—whether Zelenskyy can preserve both national dignity and the American partnership, whether Europe can compensate for potential American disengagement, whether Russia's apparent strategy of engineering a diplomatic breakdown will succeed. What happens now will be critical not just for Ukraine to survive this Russian invasion but to prevent the next one. If Ukraine is abandoned permanently, preventing that next invasion—or even surviving it—may prove impossible. The peace proposal presented to Ukraine is not merely a bad deal. It is a diplomatic trap designed to place the burden of refusal on Kyiv while providing Moscow with either a favorable settlement that enables future aggression or a pretext for Washington to disengage entirely. Ukraine's moment of truth has arrived, and the chances of any real victory are vanishingly small. The question is no longer whether Ukraine can achieve the outcome it fought for over nearly four years of continuous warfare. The question is whether it can avoid the worst outcomes: capitulation that guarantees future conquest, or abandonment that makes such conquest inevitable. In the brutal calculus of this moment, survival itself would constitute success—and even that is far from assured.

Related Coverage

FAQ

Why does the 28-point proposal cap Ukraine's military at 600,000 troops while imposing no restrictions on Russia's 2.4 million-strong forces?

The asymmetric military restrictions are the proposal's defining feature, designed to leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression. While Ukraine would be forced to reduce from 900,000 active personnel plus 1.2 million reservists down to 600,000 total, Russia faces no comparable constraints and has been expanding its military since September 2024 under Putin's orders.

What specific territorial concessions would Ukraine be forced to make under the initial peace proposal?

Ukraine would cede the entire Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk including areas Russia never conquered, surrender Crimea permanently, freeze territorial control in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia at current lines, and give up critical cities like Pokrovsk, Sloviansk, and Kramatorsk—approximately one-fifth of Ukrainian territory in total.

How did the European counter-proposal from the Geneva talks on November 23, 2025 differ from the original U.S.-Russia plan?

The European E3 counter-proposal raised Ukraine's military cap to 800,000 troops with wartime expansion potential, eliminated the NATO expansion ban, removed immunity for Russian war crimes, demanded U.S. security guarantees mirroring NATO Article 5, and required frozen Russian assets remain frozen until Russia compensates Ukraine for war damages.

What evidence suggests Russia engineered this proposal to sever U.S.-Ukraine relations rather than achieve genuine peace?

According to Institute for the Study of War analysis from November 21, 2025, Russian insiders revealed the Kremlin considers even its own proposal too generous to Ukraine. Russian State Duma leaders publicly derided the deal, Putin continues emphasizing military victory as inevitable, and the proposal's terms were designed to force Ukrainian rejection—giving Trump justification to disengage entirely.

Why can't Europe sustain Ukraine's defense without American support if Washington disengages?

Europe currently lacks the military production capacity, intelligence infrastructure, and coordinated command systems to replace American contributions to Ukraine's war effort. While Europe can continue supplying assistance and purchasing weapons, it cannot match the scale of U.S. support without dramatic increases in defense spending and capabilities that would take years to develop.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →