Washington: The United States’ 28 point peace proposal aimed at resolving the war in Ukraine reportedly drew substantial content from a Russian-origin “non-paper,” according to multiple sources familiar with the drafting process. The plan, initially introduced by Washington as a framework for negotiations, incorporated terms that closely mirrored Moscow’s preferences, including territorial and security arrangements that Kyiv had previously rejected. The revelation has prompted scrutiny from both Ukrainian officials and Western allies, raising concerns over the neutrality and credibility of the proposal.
Sources indicate that the Russian document was shared with U.S. officials in mid October, shortly after high-level discussions between American and Ukrainian leadership. It outlined Russia’s desired conditions for a ceasefire and long-term settlement, reflecting Moscow’s strategic priorities in the ongoing conflict. While some U.S. policymakers reportedly resisted adopting the Russian terms, the Trump administration initially integrated portions of the draft into its formal peace plan. This alignment has drawn criticism from lawmakers and diplomats who caution that the plan risks being perceived as a “Russian wish-list,” potentially undermining trust in the U.S. as an impartial mediator.
The backlash has led to efforts to revise the original framework. Diplomatic channels in Geneva, Abu Dhabi, and other forums are reportedly reviewing the plan to pare down controversial elements and present a version more acceptable to Kyiv and European partners. Observers note, however, that the underlying influence of the Russian draft continues to raise questions about the plan’s fairness and feasibility, as well as its potential to achieve a sustainable resolution to the conflict. Analysts warn that any settlement perceived as heavily favoring Moscow could deepen mistrust, complicate future negotiations, and prolong instability in the region.
The emerging situation underscores the complexity of international mediation in the Ukraine crisis, where proposals intended to foster peace must balance competing national interests, maintain credibility, and respect the sovereignty and security concerns of all parties involved. As discussions continue, stakeholders in Washington, Kyiv, and Europe are watching closely to determine whether the revised plan can bridge divides or merely reflect the influence of one dominant party in shaping the future of the war-torn region.