There are doubts that Russia will sign it: experts assessed the US "peace plan"
Kyiv • UNN
The Trump administration presented a 28-point "peace plan" for Ukraine, which envisages Russia's control over Donbas, a reduction of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO. Military experts consider these guarantees ineffective and doubt Ukraine's signing of the plan.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has presented another draft "peace plan" for ending the war in Ukraine, consisting of 28 points. The document, in particular, provides for Russia's control over Donbas, a reduction in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO. Military experts, in a comment to UNN, assessed the chances of its signing and whether NATO countries would be able to respond to a repeated Russian attack.
The 28-point document stipulates that Russia will gain de facto control over Donbas, although Ukraine still controls about 12% of these territories. At the same time, the territories from which Ukraine withdraws its troops will be considered demilitarized, and the Russian Federation will not be able to deploy its troops there. In other regions, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the lines of control will largely remain frozen, and Russia will return some lands after negotiations.
Some sources claim that under the American plan, Ukraine retains legal ownership of Donbas, and Russia will pay "rent" for managing the region. The amounts involved are unclear.
Ukraine's national interest must be taken into account - Zelenskyy21.11.25, 17:08 • 4345 views
The document will also stipulate that no foreign troops will be allowed on the territory of Ukraine, and Kyiv will no longer receive Western long-range weapons for strikes against the Russian Federation.
However, the US has prepared a draft security guarantees for Ukraine within the framework of Donald Trump's "peace plan" based on the model of NATO's Article 5, which obliges the US and European allies to consider an attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire "transatlantic community" and to respond accordingly.
The document states that any future "significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack" by Russia on Ukraine "will be considered an attack threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community." If this happens, the US and its allies will respond accordingly, including the use of military force.
In a comment to UNN, military expert, co-founder and head of the Ukrainian Center for Security and Cooperation Serhiy Kuzan noted that in the event of a repeated attack on Ukraine, these guarantees would not be effective because NATO's Article 5 is not effective.
If you ask European partners, and even Rutte himself, whether Article 5 will work if, for example, people without insignia enter several villages near Narva. Will missiles fly to Russia? Will German troops use weapons for the sake of a few forces in the Estonian hinterland? These are not my words, I am retransmitting the words of those who are engaged in military policy in the current, and previous, by the way, US Administration. Therefore, no Article 5 works today. This is determined by the US approach, but also, let's say, by the irresponsible position of European countries, because any diplomatic position must be secured. Secured with weapons in a specific case, or other levers, for example, sanctions.
Military-political observer of the "Information Resistance" group Oleksandr Kovalenko holds the same opinion.
In a comment to UNN, he emphasized that the proposed model of so-called security guarantees would not be effective.
Because even for NATO countries, Article 5 is sufficiently bureaucratic and archaic. In modern conditions of warfare, it does more harm than good to NATO countries, because they will have to wait for help, taking into account that some bureaucratic mechanisms must be carried out, starting from consultations, and ending with the fact that not all NATO countries can help equally. Some will simply provide logistics, some will provide troops, some will provide airspace, and there is no solid, standard obligation for everyone to help, for example, exclusively militarily, so that it would be an obligation. No, any country can refuse this. For example, Hungary can generally say: "We will support you morally, perhaps send humanitarian aid, but we will not provide our army, our tanks." This fully fits into the context of this Article 5 of collective security. Therefore, this will not work in terms of security guarantees. And this is the most interesting thing, since the Alliance is a legally bureaucratized organization, I generally do not see any ways of legal instruments that would allow us to become members of the Alliance when we are not members of the Alliance.
According to him, any Alliance country will be able to refuse to help Ukraine because Ukraine is not a NATO member.
The clearest example is that in 2022, the President of Ukraine proposed creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and that NATO air defense systems should contribute to this. This idea has been voiced repeatedly, and even recently it was mentioned when Russian drones flew into Poland, but it cannot be implemented technically, technologically, but most importantly, legally. There are no legal instruments or justifications for it to work. In general, I want to say that whoever prepared this document is a great geopolitical ignoramus, because he does not understand many basic diplomatic, legal, bureaucratic, political moments that exist in the format of international relations. Given that Witkoff was involved in the formation of this plan, it is not surprising, because such a diplomatic ignoramus is hard to find.
Zelenskyy discussed US peace plan with Vance - media21.11.25, 16:47 • 3446 views
BILD suggests that after the war ends, within 2-3 years after the agreement is concluded, Russia will be able to regroup and launch a new attack on Ukraine, which Ukraine will not be able to repel.
Kovalenko noted that "this is quite realistic, but from BILD's side, it's a rather optimistic view that this plan will be signed."
I don't think Ukraine will sign it, because for Ukraine... we are for any diplomatic solutions, we have always been on the side of any diplomatic solutions, starting from 2014, and continuing even now, but on a fair solution through diplomatic means. The plan that we can see now is a plan that represents, firstly, - the actual capitulation of Ukraine, secondly, - the destruction of all international relations in the matter of border sovereignty, and the independence of any other country, that is, this plan calls into question the sovereignty of borders, and the independence of the country. Firstly, this document cannot be accepted by the civilized, international community, and, secondly, if it is signed... I have doubts that Russia will sign it, because Russia does not need it at all. We talk a lot about Ukraine, but we don't talk about Russia. Russia does not need it, Russia currently has no intention of stopping. But, if we imagine that it stops somewhere for about six months, then this will be an opportunity for it to accumulate resources, and in six months to start an even larger, even bloodier war. Russia will not stop. Putin's regime cannot survive in conditions of peace.
It should be noted that the peace plan also provides for a reduction of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to 600,000 military personnel.
Kuzan noted that a model has been created in Ukraine where there are structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Guard, etc.
These are all not the Armed Forces of Ukraine, so some will simply change their chevrons to others, that is, formally this can be circumvented. Another matter is what the real risks are. Will there be provision, because people need to be maintained, they need to be paid salaries, etc. Will there be such capabilities, that is the main question.