"A 28‑point peace plan pressures Ukraine to surrender Donbas, cap its military, and limit reparations"
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The leaked 28‑point draft — widely reported as coming from talks between a U.S. team led by Steve Witkoff and Russian interlocutors — included provisions that would require Ukraine to cede control of parts of the Donbas, cap its armed forces (reported at 600,000 in the original draft, with European counterproposals raising the cap to 800,000), and bar NATO membership; the draft prompted sharp criticism from Kyiv and European allies and was subsequently revised down to fewer points (reports say 19–20) after negotiations in Geneva [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Major actors dispute the draft’s status: some U.S. officials said it was evolving, Ukraine says a revised version now exists, and Russian officials publicly rejected key elements even while calling the plan a negotiation basis [5] [6] [7].
1. What the leaked 28 points actually proposed
The original 28‑point document as obtained and summarized by outlets like Axios and the BBC included concrete concessions that would force Kyiv to give up additional territory in the east, cap the size of its military at about 600,000 in one iteration, and formally renounce NATO membership — provisions Ukrainian and European officials found politically fraught [1] [2]. The European counterproposal modified some language, including raising a military cap to 800,000 in peacetime and replacing “sanctions” with “penalties” in parts of the text, showing differences even among Western responders to the draft [3] [8].
2. How Kyiv and its allies reacted
Ukrainian officials publicly warned against ceding territory; Kyiv’s delegation said sensitive items had been bracketed and that the leaked 28‑point version “no longer existed” after Geneva talks, with reports that the document was pared to 19 or 20 points and that some of Russia’s maximalist demands were removed or deferred for leaders to decide later [6] [9] [4]. European capitals quickly produced their own 28‑point counterproposal and voiced concern that the original draft appeared excessively favorable to Moscow, underlining a split between U.S. negotiators involved and many European allies [3] [4] [10].
3. Moscow’s posture: accept, amend, or reject?
Russian officials gave mixed signals. Some Kremlin figures publicly rejected key parts of the U.S. 28‑point draft — for example disputing proposed territorial swaps and timelines for elections — even as President Putin’s aides suggested the plan could be a starting point for negotiation rather than a final agreement [7] [11]. Russian actors have also insisted that long‑standing Kremlin security demands be addressed, complicating any rapid convergence [7].
4. The politics behind the paperwork
Reporting traces the plan’s authorship to meetings between U.S. figures (Witkoff and others) and Russian representatives such as Kirill Dmitriev, with involvement or endorsement from senior U.S. political figures. That provenance helps explain why the document prompted alarm: critics saw an attempt to broker a deal that could leave Ukraine making painful concessions while Washington and Moscow negotiate the contours of European security [12] [13] [10]. Some reporters and analysts described the draft as modeled on prior ceasefire frameworks and as motivated by a U.S. desire to end the war quickly — an objective that can conflict with Ukrainian red lines [5] [12].
5. What changed after Geneva and why the text is fluid
After multi‑party Geneva discussions, Ukrainian delegates reported that the plan had been shortened and reworked, with “sensitive” territorial issues shifted into brackets for leader‑level decisions; some outlets said the 28 points were no longer operative and that the package had shrunk to 19 or 20 items [9] [6] [5]. Multiple sources emphasize that the document has been evolving, and reporting warns that different drafts — U.S., European, and leaked variants — reflect competing agendas and leverage [8] [3].
6. Limitations of available reporting and competing narratives
Available sources show several consistent facts — the draft’s contents as reported, strong Ukrainian and European pushback, and revisions after talks — but they also reveal gaps: the full authoritative, final text of any agreed plan is not publicly confirmed, and the U.S. administration described the plan as still changing [5] [6]. Some outlets present the draft as essentially U.S.‑authored; others emphasize joint U.S.–Russia drafting. Readers should note explicit disagreements among Kyiv, Moscow, Washington, and European capitals about both content and process [1] [7] [3].
7. Why this matters going forward
If elements forcing territorial concessions, military caps, or NATO renunciation reappear in a final agreement, they would reshape Ukraine’s sovereignty and European security architecture and would test allied cohesion — which has already produced a European counterproposal and urgent diplomacy [3] [10]. Current reporting indicates negotiations remain live and contentious; the final outcome and legal commitments are not yet publicly verified [5] [6].