Volodymyr Zelenskyy has published a 20-point draft peace framework that Ukrainian officials describe as the basis of a potential agreement to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.
The document, presented publicly after weeks of talks involving Ukrainian, US and European negotiators, is being treated in Kyiv as a revised, shorter version of an earlier 28-point outline.
Zelenskyy discussed the proposal on 25 December with US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s adviser Jared Kushner, saying the conversation covered negotiation formats and next steps. The Kremlin has said it is reviewing documents delivered by Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who is expected to brief Vladimir Putin.
Public reporting indicates the plan attempts to bridge the gap between Kyiv’s long-stated demands for sovereignty and security, and Washington’s push for a settlement that can be presented as implementable. RFE/RL described the text as an “unconditional nonaggression agreement”, while noting that territorial control and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant remain among the most difficult issues.
The 20 points were developed through talks involving Ukraine, the United States and European partners, while Russia’s position remains unconfirmed and depends on a decision in Moscow after internal review. Public reporting indicates broad alignment between Kyiv and Washington on most elements, with Moscow reviewing the text rather than endorsing it.
Several provisions highlighted in the discussion focus on legal and definitional questions. The plan’s opening emphasis on “reaffirming” Ukraine’s sovereignty is treated by the commentator as politically loaded, not because Ukraine’s statehood is disputed in international law, but because any reaffirmation raises the question of which borders are being recognised. He pointed to the 1991 Alma-Ata documents associated with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which include principles of territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders among participating former republics.
Security guarantees emerge as a key area of uncertainty. The draft sets out a deterrence model intended to prevent renewed attack, but the practical operation of that model depends on clear triggers, scope and enforcement. Provisions that condition guarantees on Ukraine’s conduct, including potential suspension if Ukraine is deemed to have attacked Russian territory, increase the importance of defining what constitutes an attack, how attribution is determined, and what automatic measures follow any subsequent breach by Russia.
Another contentious area is the proposed handling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The draft envisages a form of internationalised operation or oversight involving Ukraine, the United States and Russia, raising questions about access, security, legal authority and revenue allocation while the surrounding territory remains under Russian military control.
Point 13 has drawn attention because it links post-war stabilisation to education, tolerance programmes and minority protections. The clause frames commitments to educational programmes promoting mutual understanding and countering racism and prejudice, alongside requirements for Ukraine to implement EU standards on religious tolerance and the protection of minority languages. The wording creates scope for disputes over implementation, including the status of the Russian language in education and public life and the regulation of religious institutions.
The wider context in which the plan is presented is a dual-track environment: negotiation efforts alongside continuing assessments of broader European security risk. The draft also sits against constraints on Russia’s war-financing capacity, where revenue from hydrocarbons and reserve levels affect fiscal flexibility and the sustainability of prolonged military operations.
The central issue is whether the parties can reach agreement on definitions and enforcement mechanisms that determine durability: recognised borders, the precise conditions for activating or suspending security guarantees, and the governance framework for contested infrastructure. With the text still under review in Moscow and unresolved questions concentrated in these areas, the 20 points function as a structured basis for further bargaining rather than a settled agreement.
