Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recently unveiled 20-point peace framework, developed with U.S. and European partners, seeks to address the complex aftermath of nearly three years of war in Ukraine. This conflict has resulted in substantial loss of life and displacement. The plan is an attempt to forge a path toward peace while ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.
The framework’s first point is a bold affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, confirmed by all signatories, including Russia. This counters Russia’s historical assertions regarding Ukrainian statehood and explicitly challenges President Putin’s claim that “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia.” By insisting on sovereignty, Zelenskyy positions Ukraine firmly on the international stage.
One key element of the plan is its focus on non-aggression. It establishes a full and unconditional pact between Russia and Ukraine, supported by satellite-based surveillance. This represents a significant departure from the Minsk agreements of 2015, which lacked tangible verification measures. “The new surveillance capabilities are intended to provide neutral, verifiable evidence of troop movements,” providing an indicated advantage in enforcing peace.
Security guarantees also play a major role in the framework. They go beyond the vague assurances from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which were ignored when Russia annexed Crimea. The new provisions demand enforceable protections for Ukraine, addressing the concerns that have arisen from Russia’s repeated breaches of trust. With 800,000 personnel planned for peacetime, the military structure signals Ukraine’s commitment to its defense. However, the actual effectiveness of such numbers in deterring aggression remains debatable.
The proposal includes Article 5-style security commitments akin to those in NATO’s defense clause, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, ambiguity regarding whether responses would be automatic or at the discretion of the President raises important questions about the reliability of these guarantees. An earlier provision requiring U.S. financial compensation has been discarded, yet the responsibility for military action could still rest heavily on U.S. shoulders without a formal congressional declaration of war.
Another notable aspect of the framework is its treatment of Russia’s legal obligations. The requirement for Russia to adopt a non-aggression policy in domestic law represents a step forward, although past violations cast doubt on the enforceability of such an agreement. Similarly, European forces led by France and the UK would bolster security, emphasizing a European-led presence rather than a primary U.S. role. The way contributions would vary by nation hints at a collaborative but complex security dynamic.
Interestingly, the plan does not require Ukraine to renounce its aspirations for NATO membership. Initially, there was a proposal for Ukraine to amend its constitution to formally abandon these ambitions, but that language has been removed, reflecting a possible shift in Ukraine’s defense strategy. This decision aligns with Ukraine’s right to choose its security alliances, separate from any negotiations with Russia.
The agreement’s legal binding nature and the establishment of a Peace Council, with President Trump at the helm, raise both confidence and concern. It could provide much-needed oversight and structure, yet worries persist that it may falter without continuity once Trump’s term ends.
Aspects of the framework, including its sanctions for violations, appear vague. Defining what shocks the system and how they would be acted upon remains a challenge. This lack of clarity could lead to disputes and disagreements between the involved parties, further complicating implementation.
A full ceasefire is set to activate upon agreement, allowing for rapid response to immediate needs. However, the sequencing of when security guarantees take effect raises an alarming vulnerability for Ukraine. A delay of up to 60 days could allow Russia to entrench itself, using that period to solidify territorial gains and further its interests without facing international repercussions.
Ultimately, while Zelenskyy’s 20-point framework aims to bridge a path toward peace, significant challenges remain. The complexities of enforcement, coupled with long-standing tensions, create an uncertain landscape for both Ukraine and its allies. As of now, the framework serves as much a negotiation tool as it is a statement of intent, leaving observers and stakeholders pondering its potential to end the conflict.
"*" indicates required fields
