NextFin News - On December 24, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held a detailed briefing in Kyiv to unveil a revised peace proposal jointly developed with the United States aimed at ending the nearly four-year conflict with Russia. The 20-point framework, presented after extensive negotiations involving US, European, and Ukrainian officials, was formally submitted to Moscow, with Ukraine expecting a response by the same day.
The plan seeks to stabilize the current frontline across the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson by freezing troop deployments and initiating the creation of demilitarized buffer zones. It notably includes guarantees affirming Ukraine's sovereignty and security, security arrangements akin to NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause backed by the US, NATO, and European states, and commits Ukraine to remain non-nuclear.
However, the plan leaves unresolved core territorial issues. Ukraine proposes a reciprocal pullback and demilitarization in Donetsk, conflicting with Russia's insistence on full relinquishment of Ukrainian-controlled areas there. Similarly, control over Europe's largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia, remains contentious; while the US suggested a tripartite operation including Russia, Kyiv advocates a joint venture solely with the United States and demands full demilitarization of the plant and its environs reflecting safety concerns.
Further provisions include Ukraine's path to European Union membership, acceleration of free trade agreements with the US, and establishment of multi-national funds for Ukraine's reconstruction and economic development. An overseeing Peace Council chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump is proposed to monitor implementation and sanction violations.
This peace plan represents a strategic recalibration from the initially more concessionary US proposal of late November 2025. It addresses many Ukrainian objections by removing clauses demanding immediate troop withdrawals from eastern territories and abandoning NATO membership ambitions, which remain open but realistically distant given US opposition.
The announcement arrives amid ongoing violent hostilities, including recent Russian drone and missile attacks causing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, reflecting the urgent but fragile nature of ceasefire prospects.
The underlying causes shaping this complex plan stem from the entrenched conflict dynamics and geopolitical tensions. Russia's sustained push to control eastern territories and assert influence clashes with Ukraine's insistence on territorial integrity and sovereignty. The United States, under U.S. President Trump, is endeavoring to forge a compromise balancing deterrence of further Russian aggression through security guarantees while avoiding outright withdrawal demands that would invalidate Kyiv's position.
From a geopolitical perspective, the plan illustrates the nuanced US strategy to contain Russian expansionism while managing alliance cohesion, especially with NATO and EU partners. The inclusion of stringent security guarantees modeled on NATO’s Article 5 signals a long-term commitment to Ukraine’s defense, representing a calibrated deterrence posture that aims to dissuade Russia from renewed incursions.
Economically, the peace plan's emphasis on international financial mechanisms for reconstruction suggests recognition of the conflict's extensive toll on Ukraine’s infrastructure and socioeconomic fabric. Establishing dedicated funds and accelerating economic integration with Western markets aims to foster stabilization and reduce post-conflict vulnerabilities, potentially attracting substantial investments and aid.
However, key unresolved elements present substantive challenges ahead. The frozen frontlines effectively institutionalize a ceasefire line without settling sovereignty over contested territories, risking a protracted political stalemate. Disagreement over Zaporizhzhia’s management not only affects regional security but also presents critical risks related to nuclear safety in a conflict zone.
Looking forward, the success of this peace plan hinges significantly on Moscow’s receptiveness. Kremlin officials have stated that Russia is formulating its response, with President Vladimir Putin briefed on the proposal. Historical precedent and current hardline stances suggest Moscow may balk at compromises perceived as limiting strategic gains.
Nevertheless, the plan’s detailed monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, including the involvement of a multinational Peace Council and sanctions for violations, introduce verification tools that could mitigate ceasefire breaches and foster accountability.
In sum, while the proposed US-backed framework advances diplomacy by freezing combat and setting institutional grounds for security and reconstruction, it deliberately postpones fundamental territorial resolutions. This design recognizes the intricate, sensitive nature of sovereignty disputes while attempting to halt active hostilities and create conditions for phased negotiation.
The continued ambiguity over territorial concessions underscores the enduring complexity of the Ukraine conflict. Future negotiations must reconcile Ukraine’s aspirations for sovereignty and territorial integrity with geopolitical realities shaped by Russian strategy and international diplomatic pressure. The plan is thus a critical but intermediate step towards a sustainable peace, requiring persistent diplomatic engagement, security commitment, and economic support under U.S. President Trump’s leadership.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
