The administration of US President Donald Trump has advanced a set of proposals aimed at halting the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal.
The plan, conveyed last week during talks in Paris, includes a possible US recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the creation of a neutral zone around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). Both Ukrainian and European officials were presented with the proposals, with a follow-up meeting set to take place in London later this week.
The proposals are described as far-reaching and politically sensitive. They reportedly include conditions that neither Kyiv nor Moscow is expected to accept, which some observers believe may allow Washington to step back from its mediating role while attributing the failure of negotiations to both parties.
According to Western officials cited by The Wall Street Journal, the ideas were formally presented to the Ukrainian delegation in Paris on 17 April and subsequently shared with European representatives. A coordinated response is anticipated during the trilateral meeting in London. If consensus is reached, the proposals could then be floated to the Russian side. Following this round of talks, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is expected to return to Moscow for discussions with President Vladimir Putin.
The plan centres on three main points: a potential US shift in policy to recognise Crimea as Russian territory, Ukrainian agreement to renounce future NATO membership, and the establishment of a neutral zone under international—possibly US—control around the ZNPP. The proposals also suggest maintaining military assistance to Ukraine, including arms transfers.
From a legal and diplomatic perspective, US recognition of Crimea as part of Russia would represent a significant break from bipartisan policy observed by every US administration since 2014. In 2018, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly rejected any recognition of the annexation, calling it a violation of international norms. US Congress has passed legislation that prohibits recognition of Russia’s claim to Crimea.
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility, currently under Russian military control, is a further point of contention. The Trump plan reportedly suggests designating the plant and surrounding area as a demilitarised neutral zone. In prior conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump is said to have raised the possibility of American ownership or oversight of Ukrainian energy assets, including nuclear facilities, as a means of securing their future.
Ukrainian officials have not publicly responded to the proposals, but political analysts note that any endorsement of Crimea’s annexation would be unacceptable to Kyiv and a violation of the country’s constitution. It would also be viewed as a breach of international law, potentially encouraging further territorial claims by other states. Comparisons have been drawn to the US decision to recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in exchange for diplomatic normalisation with Israel—a move that was not followed by other states and did not lead to international consensus.
On the Russian side, the proposals are equally unlikely to gain traction. Moscow now considers the Zaporizhzhia region to be part of the Russian Federation, and it is improbable that the Kremlin would accept foreign control over infrastructure it claims lies within its borders. Additionally, President Putin has consistently opposed Western military support for Ukraine and has demanded an end to arms transfers and conscription efforts, even as a condition for temporary ceasefires.
The broader intention behind the US initiative remains subject to interpretation. Analysts suggest that the plan may serve less as a viable pathway to peace and more as a diplomatic manoeuvre enabling Trump to exit the negotiation process. By presenting terms unlikely to be accepted by either party, the US administration may claim it did everything within its power to resolve the conflict, while shifting the responsibility for further talks onto European actors.
In that context, remarks by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 18 April appear significant. Rubio warned that Washington may suspend its involvement in negotiations if there is no progress on core issues within the coming weeks. A senior State Department official subsequently clarified that the proposals were not presented as an ultimatum, but rather as a set of options for discussion and feedback.
President Trump, for his part, has expressed optimism that an agreement is still possible. In recent social media posts, he suggested that both Ukraine and Russia could find common ground in economic cooperation with the United States.
This framing, however, has not been echoed by either of the countries directly involved in the conflict.
Should no agreement emerge from this week’s London meeting, observers believe the Trump administration could use the deadlock as justification to disengage from further mediation. Such a development would mark a shift in US policy and could have implications for Europe’s diplomatic efforts moving forward.
Read also:
Russia Declares 30-Hour Easter Truce Amid Active Drone Attacks on Kyiv
