The United States has reportedly presented Ukraine with a seven-point peace plan aimed at ending its war with Russia.

This marks a substantial shift in the US’s strategy to end the conflict, which is in its fourth year now. The Trump administration has, for the last few months, been pushing for a ceasefire before both sides sit down to negotiate a long-term peace deal. 

The purported peace plan, details of which were reported by the Telegraph and Axios abandons that sequencing. Instead, it calls for the simultaneous implementation of a ceasefire, the drafting of a peace agreement involving territorial concessions by both sides, and the lifting of US sanctions on Russia, paving the way for deeper economic cooperation.

Trump’s remarks on Wednesday night suggested a willing Russia and a hesitant Ukraine.

“I think Russia is ready, and a lot of people said Russia wanted to go for the whole thing. And I think we have a deal with Russia. We have to get a deal with Zelenskyy,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

“I thought it might be easier to deal with Zelenskyy. So far, it’s been harder… But I think we have a deal with both.”

Here’s a breakdown of the reported US proposal and why Ukraine may not be thrilled about the current deal: 

Nuts and bolts

Arguably, the most controversial element of the plan is that the US would formally recognise Crimea as Russian territory (de jure), and informally accept the occupation of other regions (de facto). This effectively freezes the current front lines, allowing Russian forces to remain in substantial portions of Ukraine’s south and east, specifically, parts of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia oblasts.

Under the reported plan, Moscow would have to pull out of the pockets of the Kharkiv region that it currently occupies. Ukraine would also have "unimpeded passage" to the Dnipro River and “unhindered access to the mouth” of the river. 

Another controversial point is that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be “considered as Ukrainian territory” but under the operation of the US, while supplying electricity to both Ukraine and Russia. 

Ceteris paribus, this would render the Dnipro River a significant natural barrier between Ukrainian forces and US troops, but the lack of defensive depth would constitute a massive challenge for Ukraine to defend the nuclear plant in case of future renewed Russian operations, according to analysis by the Institute for the Study of War. 

The proposal calls for a “robust security guarantee” for Ukraine, involving European and like-minded non-European countries. However, it notably lacks specifics on US involvement or how the security mechanism would operate. It is worth noting that peacekeeping forces are not the same as NATO-style security guarantees.

The plan also mandates that Ukraine will have to give up aspirations to be a NATO member, but will be allowed to pursue European Union membership. 

In addition to attempting to secure a ceasefire and a peace deal in one go, the US proposes that all US sanctions imposed against Russia since 2014 will be lifted, and Washington and Moscow would enhance their economic cooperation, particularly in the energy and industrial sectors. 

The deal also offers Ukraine compensation and reconstruction assistance, but fails to specify a funding source.

How does Ukraine feel about it? 

Not good. 

"Ukraine will not legally recognise the occupation of Crimea," Zelenskyy was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal, rejecting this as a violation of Ukraine's constitution. This angered Trump, who accused Zelenskyy of being "inflammatory" and taking a position "very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia."

Ukraine is essentially unhappy with the plan because it requires that Kiev cede a lot of its occupied territories without providing sufficient security guarantees to prevent the resumption of the war. Moreover, according to the ISW analysis provided above, a terrain study or the current frontline would provide Russia enormous advantages and would increase, rather than extinguish, the risks of future war waged against Ukraine.

Ukrainian Economic Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said that a ceasefire on all fronts is necessary before a peace deal is ironed out, adding that Kiev cannot agree to a settlement that hands Moscow a “stronger foundation” to potentially new hostilities. 

Instead, Ukrainian officials have been advocating for a return to the US’s earlier position from March 2025 — a 30-day ceasefire to lay the groundwork for a more durable peace agreement.

What about Russia? 

Moscow is also displeased with several aspects of the plan, particularly the proposed deployment of European peacekeepers.

Valentina Matvienko, Chairperson of the Federation Council, dismissed any negotiations involving such a deployment.

It’s a sentiment echoed by Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, in an interview with French magazine Le Point. Peskov also said Russia has rejected Trump’s ceasefire plan because it did not meet Moscow’s demands that Ukraine cede the entirety of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia oblasts – Ukrainian territories that Russia has annexed.

On Telegram, prominent Russian military bloggers such as the Two Majors channel expressed outrage that Crimea is even being discussed, given its annexation a decade ago. They also questioned why Russia would possibly want to give up the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant that they currently control to switch to American operational control.

In their view, Washington has more to gain from economic agreements than Moscow does. For Russia, the new deal provides them with too little, only guaranteeing what is already a done deal for them already. 

The reaction to the proposed peace deal came as top Ukrainian officials concluded talks in London with representatives from the UK, France, Germany, and the United States.

Now, with the US framing this as its “final offer,” and threatening to walk away, the future of the Russo-Ukrainian war remains ever more uncertain.