Trump's ultimatum and 28 points: What's really happening with Ukraine peace plan

So after two turbulent weeks, this one promises to be no less intense. Only now, the number-one topic — not just for Ukraine but globally — will be Trump's ultimatums to Kyiv and new contours of peace.

A fateful moment

The key issue that many MPs had been preparing for days to raise at the meeting with the President on November 20 concerned the possible dismissal of the head of the Presidential Office, Andriy Yermak. At least, according to RBC-Ukraine, that was the question most frequently repeated in an anonymous survey that the entire faction was asked to fill out before meeting with Zelenskyy.

Sources cited two reasons for this. The first is more concrete but still hypothetical: the possible appearance of Yermak's voice on the NABU tapes and his alleged (so far unproven) involvement in the Mindich scandal.

The second is more general but accumulated and real: Yermak's political responsibility for the scandal and the dissatisfaction among many MPs over the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the head of the Presidential Office.

Under these circumstances, many faction members placed their expectations primarily on Davyd Arakhamia, the head of the Servant of the People faction in Parliament, who was tasked with conveying the will of the outraged MPs to Zelenskyy. According to those present, Arakhamia entered the room to applause — as if he were the "head of a revolutionary committee." But that was the role assigned to him, not the one he actually performed.

A few hours before the meeting, a message circulated through Telegram channels claiming that the "revolt" against Yermak had not just failed, but that a counterstrike was allegedly being prepared in response, and Arakhamia might lose his position. According to MPs, this leak significantly demoralised part of the Servant of the People faction.

In the end, the meeting concluded without any personnel decisions. The only one who publicly raised the issue of dismissing the head of the Presidential Office was the unaffiliated MP Mariana Bezuhla. According to eyewitnesses, Zelenskyy's response sounded roughly as follows: he does not make decisions without real grounds, and he does not plan to dismiss the head of his Office in the near future.

The issue of possible new resignations amid the corruption scandal has moved to the background (photo: GettyImages)

"The president said almost explicitly that, ideally, such crises should be resolved through elections, and even if elections were possible now, people would not vote for Servant of the People in its current condition. Therefore, it is better for deputies not to destroy the coalition, but to vote for the necessary laws, especially at such a fateful moment for the country," one of the sources said.

It was precisely this fateful moment, one MP said, that compelled many in the room to restrain their impulse to protest. The day before, Western media reported on a new peace plan that includes several painful conditions the United States is expected to push Ukraine to accept. That same day, November 19, an American delegation arrived in Kyiv, led by Daniel Driscoll — the Secretary of the Army and a close associate of Vice President JD Vance — to discuss the plan.

Both tracks — the political crisis and the peace talks — are clearly interconnected. According to a widely shared view in the corridors of power, even if the Mindich scandal wasn't inspired by the Americans, it certainly played into their hands by weakening Ukraine's internal position. Though the root cause — corruption at the highest levels of government — has not disappeared.

At the same time, this new wave of pressure on Ukraine has predictably triggered an effect of rallying around the country's leader. It was precisely this effect that Zelenskyy tried to use in his address, prompting a wide range of reactions on social media.

"Right now is one of the most difficult moments in our history. The pressure on Ukraine is at its peak. The country may face a very tough choice: either a loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner. Either the challenging 28 points, or an extremely harsh winter, the hardest yet, along with further risks. A life without freedom, without dignity, without justice. And we’re expected to trust someone who has already attacked us twice. They will be waiting for our answer," the President began his address to Ukrainians on November 21.

US ultimatum

There are three of the most common theories about why the push to revive the peace process — which had been stalled for a month — happened precisely now. According to one of them, which RBC-Ukraine heard from several sources both in Ukraine and Europe, Moscow once again faced the threat of sanctions: new US sanctions against Russian oil were about to take effect. And the Kremlin tried to derail them by offering the Americans a new peace plan.

According to the second theory, the Ukrainian authorities themselves asked the Americans to reinvigorate the peace process amid growing public dissatisfaction over corruption scandals, and the United States provided our representatives with a draft based on work already completed.

However, a more widespread and rather obvious version is that the Americans simply took advantage of the moment when internal problems in Ukraine had flared up. On top of that, the overall situation for Ukraine has shifted for the worse: serious problems in the energy sector, increasing pressure from the enemy at the front, and raising money for PURL procurement is proving difficult.

Despite early rumours that the plan was supposedly developed by Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Kremlin's representative Kirill Dmitriev, it later became clear that Trump himself backed it. His interest in achieving peace "here and now" may be driven by two motives: a desire to secure a Nobel Peace Prize nomination in time and a need to overshadow the escalating Epstein files scandal.

Over the course of three days, American negotiators held a series of meetings in Kyiv with Ukraine's political and military leadership, as well as with European ambassadors. According to The Guardian, Trump officially appointed Driscoll as his special envoy to promote the peace plan.

Last week, Driscoll held meetings with the President and many Ukrainian officials, military personnel, and diplomats (photo: president.gov.ua)

"They came to us with an ultimatum: if you don't support this plan by November 27, then please handle it yourselves with the Europeans — we will stop everything. Weapons deliveries, intelligence support - everything will be cut off. On the first day of the visit, their rhetoric was extremely harsh, though it softened somewhat later," one informed RBC-Ukraine source said.

Other sources confirmed this ultimatum to the outlet. Later, Trump himself stated that since Ukraine is losing its land, November 27 is an appropriate moment for Kyiv to agree to a peace deal. At the same time, he threatened Russia with new significant sanctions.

According to RBC-Ukraine, Driscoll arrived in Kyiv to discuss two draft documents. One of them consists of 28 points, already published by Axios, covering various aspects of Ukrainian-Russian settlement, ranging from territorial issues to conditions for Russia's reintegration into the global economy.

The other, an additional document, the framework agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine, which, according to its text, is modelled on the principles of NATO Article 5. RBC-Ukraine sources say this framework agreement contains three points.

The first stipulates that in the event of a renewed armed attack by Russia on Ukraine, the US President may provide military forces, intelligence and logistical support, economic and diplomatic measures, and other actions deemed appropriate.

The second point specifies that NATO members, together with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and Finland, commit to act in coordination with the US. The third point states that the framework agreement will be in effect for ten years, with the possibility of extension.

The complex 28 points

Not all provisions of the American peace plan appear acceptable or fair to Ukraine, which is a victim of unprovoked aggression. However, the 28 points published last week are not a final document, but rather material presented to the Ukrainian side for discussion. In fact, Trump himself recently confirmed this, stating that his plan is not a definitive proposal. These 28 points were the subject of yesterday's talks in Geneva between the Ukrainian and American delegations. The same applies to the additional framework agreement on US security guarantees, which will also likely undergo revisions.

Some of the most controversial points in the draft plan concern territorial issues — primarily the requirement for the Ukrainian army to withdraw from the Donetsk region.

"Last week, US military officials came to Kyiv with their assessment that the frontline situation is not in our favour. They believe that the coming months will be critical for us and that in 12 months, we will still lose the Donetsk region. And if they cut off all support, it could happen even sooner," one RBC-Ukraine source said.

Under the US plan, part of the Donetsk region would become a neutral, demilitarized buffer zone under Russian control, while occupied Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk regions would be de facto recognized as Russian. The front line in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions would be frozen. In return, the Kremlin, according to the American proposal, would have to withdraw from other occupied territories outside the five regions — Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv regions.

Other contentious points in the initial draft include joint Ukrainian-Russian control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and reducing the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 600,000 personnel. There is no direct mention of the Russian church, the Russian language, or restrictions on Ukrainian weaponry.

"Regarding the army's size, the Americans directly asked our officials during their Kyiv visit: if not 600,000, then how many do you need — 800,000?" one RBC-Ukraine source said.

Following the Geneva talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that certain changes would be made to the American plan. He noted that the meeting was the most productive in all ten months of work on the peace process. Ukrainian presidential aide Yermak, who led the Ukrainian delegation, also described the dialogue as very productive.

Andriy Yermak and Marco Rubio (photo: Telegram channel of the Head of the Presidential Office Yermak)

It is worth noting that the Ukrainian authorities are currently communicating the new US initiative with extreme caution: there have been no public statements condemning any territorial concessions or other categorical formulations. It remains unclear whether this reflects a desire not to jeopardize negotiations or an understanding that the country will soon face difficult decisions.

"Both sides agreed the consultations were highly productive. The discussions showed meaningful progress toward aligning positions and identifying clear next steps. They reaffirmed that any future agreement must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a sustainable and just peace. As a result of the discussions, the parties drafted an updated and refined peace framework," reads a joint statement from the Ukrainian and US delegations. The statement also notes that final decisions regarding this framework document will be made by the presidents of Ukraine and the United States.

According to the outlet, the delegations in Geneva managed to agree on most provisions of the US plan and adjust a significant portion of the disputed points. These included issues such as the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the format for prisoner exchanges, and the return of convicted individuals. Meanwhile, points related to territorial matters and enshrining Ukraine's non-membership in NATO in the Constitution, RBC-Ukraine sources report, were set aside — they are to be discussed and agreed at the presidential level between Zelenskyy and Trump. This meeting could take place later this week or next, although no specific date was agreed upon in Geneva.

Western media note that the US President aims to finalize a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia by the end of this year. However, as is often the case with Trump's deadlines, no dates should be taken literally. The American President himself acknowledges that if, in his view, the process is moving in the right direction, the schedule can easily be adjusted.

The further path of the peace plan, according to RBC-Ukraine sources, is expected to proceed as follows: if Ukraine soon agrees with the US on the final points, and the US coordinates with European partners on provisions that directly concern them, then American negotiators will proceed to Russia with the agreed plan, employing a carrot-and-stick strategy.

In the Kremlin, however, officials continue to adhere to Soviet-style diplomatic logic: any concession or compromise is seen as a sign of weakness, defeat, or failure. Thus, Putin may once again talk about being ready for peace — but with his own "buts." At the same time, due to his own insatiability, he could lose even a game that is set up to be highly favourable for him.