Trump, who promised to end the war in a day, tries again: Will this time be different?

It has been over 300 days since Donald Trump assumed office, yet the war between Russia and Ukraine—which he once promised to end within 24 hours—continues. It has become increasingly clear that finding an agreement acceptable to both sides is far more complicated than Trump may have imagined. During this time, the U.S. president tried multiple approaches, including offers of compromise and threats, but he was unable to bring the Russian administration to the negotiating table.

Yet Trump has not given up. Operating with the mindset of “if not in a day, then in a year,” his administration has presented a new peace plan to both parties. Announced on November 20, the 28-point plan appears to favor Moscow more than previous efforts, sparking intense debate. Online, comments suggesting that “Trump is demanding Kyiv surrender” are spreading rapidly, while Europe and the Ukrainian public express dissatisfaction. Despite these criticisms, Trump asserts that this is the only viable path for Ukraine. The president appears willing to set aside principles of fairness to achieve peace by any means necessary—but how durable can such a peace be if Ukraine’s interests are compromised?

Creating fragile agreements, similar to past Israel-Palestine accords, would simply expand the list of Trump’s supposed achievements. True and lasting peace requires that the interests of both sides be equally considered. The new White House proposal places conditions on Ukraine while aiming to reintegrate Russia into the international community. Yet a crucial question remains: will Ukraine accept these terms?

What does the new agreement include?

Previous proposals also included significant concessions to Moscow. Russia had the right to retain full control over Luhansk, as well as roughly 70-75 percent of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. Discussions over U.S. deliveries of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine even prompted a planned meeting in Budapest, Hungary, which was later postponed due to mutual excuses from both sides.

Despite past failures, the current plan appears capable of bringing Moscow back to the negotiating table. It addresses Russia’s key concerns, most notably restricting Ukraine from joining NATO. Under the proposal, Ukraine would amend its constitution to prohibit NATO membership, and NATO would commit not to admit Ukraine in the future. This provision, if agreed upon, would eliminate Russia’s primary security concern. Since Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were a major factor in the conflicts that began in 2014, preventing Western troops from entering Ukraine is a critical measure from Russia’s perspective. By offering guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO, the U.S. may reassure the Kremlin.

The agreement also sets a cap of 600,000 personnel for the Ukrainian armed forces, compared with prewar estimates of 800,000–850,000 troops. Before the war, official Ukrainian figures placed their forces at roughly 250,000.

Another major point under international scrutiny is the U.S. security guarantee for Kyiv. These guarantees, modeled on Article 5 of the NATO treaty, obligate the U.S. and European allies to treat any attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire transatlantic community. However, should Ukraine initiate aggression against Russia, the guarantees would be voided. The proposal also allows European fighter jets to be stationed in Poland, providing additional reassurance for Ukraine.

While NATO membership is restricted, the agreement preserves Ukraine’s potential accession to the European Union. As stipulated, Ukraine retains the right to join the EU and, during the negotiation period, may access the European market under temporary favorable conditions.

To compensate for damages caused by the war, $100 billion of Russia’s frozen assets would be allocated by the U.S. to Ukraine’s reconstruction and investment efforts, with Europe contributing an additional $100 billion to increase the total investment.

The plan also emphasizes cultural tolerance. Both countries would commit to educational programs promoting understanding of different cultures, combating racism and superstition, and developing social cohesion. Ukraine would adopt EU regulations protecting religious diversity and minority languages, potentially leading to the legalization of the Russian language within Ukraine.

Another key provision focuses on reintegrating Russia into the global economy, including plans to re-invite Russia to the G8 and establish long-term economic cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare metal extraction in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate projects. Trump’s strategy of rapprochement with Russia appears designed to prevent this resource-rich ally from pivoting to China, given Russia’s current inability to compete with the U.S. on equal terms.

Arguably the most contentious element concerns territorial divisions. Under the U.S. proposal, Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be de facto Russian territories, recognized as such by the U.S., while Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would remain frozen along current frontlines. This requires Ukraine to relinquish roughly 20 percent of its territory. The agreement further specifies:

“Ukrainian forces will withdraw from areas of Donetsk under their control, which will become a neutral demilitarized buffer zone internationally recognized as belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized area.”

Both Russia and Ukraine would be obligated not to alter the peace agreement by force.

Additional clauses include ensuring Russia does not obstruct commercial activity on the Dnipro River, holding elections in Ukraine within 100 days, monitoring and guaranteeing compliance through a Trump-led Peace Council, and establishing a humanitarian committee to resolve unresolved issues.

International reaction

The peace plan, announced on November 20, immediately caused a stir on the global stage. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European Union representatives, and even the Russian administration voiced objections.

Initially, the White House had claimed it was consulting with the Russian government during the development of the plan. Now, the Kremlin appears displeased as well. Russia announced it would not publicly debate the plan and seems reluctant to accept terms drafted secretly with the U.S.

On November 21, President Vladimir Putin confirmed receipt of the 28-point draft from the U.S., noting it could form the basis for a final agreement. However, he emphasized that no substantive discussions had occurred because Ukraine had not agreed to the plan and stated that Russia was prepared to continue the war, satisfied with the current dynamics.

Alexei Zhuravlev, First Deputy Chair of the State Duma Defense Committee, expressed a contrasting view, arguing that true peace can only be achieved on the battlefield:

“The conflict can only be fully resolved if a clear victory is achieved on the front and Ukraine surrenders. Any other outcome merely postpones confrontation.”

Ukraine understands the severity of the situation. President Zelensky faces an extremely difficult choice. While seeking to end the war, Ukraine must act in its own interest.

“Ukraine faces a difficult choice: either to risk losing its dignity or to lose a key partner. The options are a challenging 28-point peace plan or a harsh winter… I will fight to ensure that the peace plan respects the dignity and freedom of Ukrainians. We will do everything to end the war, but not at the expense of Ukraine, Europe, and global peace,” Zelensky said in an address to the nation.

Kyiv is willing to discuss Trump’s plan, but Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty is non-negotiable. At a U.N. Security Council briefing in New York, Ukraine’s deputy permanent representative, Kristina Gayovishin, reaffirmed that Ukraine would not sell its territory.

The European Union raises a separate concern regarding the use of Russia’s frozen assets. According to Trump’s plan to end the war in Ukraine, the EU’s plans to provide Kyiv with “reparations loans” could be obstructed. A senior EU official in Brussels stated that Trump has no authority over assets held in Europe. Another senior EU official described Trump’s special envoy, Stephen Whitkoff, as “in need of psychiatric evaluation” for his role in drafting the plan.

Can Trump achieve peace despite widespread disapproval? This latest effort appears unlikely to succeed. With Russia itself expressing dissatisfaction, little can be expected. Ukraine, defending its interests and Europe’s security, may face further disputes.

However, the situation is not so simple. Both sides recognize that prolonging the war would be mutually disadvantageous. Ukraine has already made significant sacrifices, and it remains uncertain how much longer it can withstand Russia’s forces alone. This may be the U.S.’s final attempt at a peace plan, as Trump has other pressing matters in Latin America, and Russia appears sufficiently exhausted. Leveraging the agreement to reintegrate into the global economy may appeal to both sides, despite their reluctance to show weakness.