On December 23-24, 2024, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy introduced a new 20-point peace framework meant to resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This proposal emerged after negotiations with the United States and Europe, refining an earlier 28-point draft that Ukraine deemed unacceptable. The new plan, led by U.S. envoys, aims to provide security guarantees, address territorial issues, and outline economic reconstruction.
Central to the framework are U.S.-backed security guarantees. However, this element raises pressing constitutional concerns regarding congressional authority over war powers. Critics argue that the reliance on these guarantees is problematic, particularly given Russia’s history of noncompliance with agreements. The success of the proposal hinges not just on Ukraine’s acceptance but also on whether Russia can be counted on to adhere to its stipulations.
One notable aspect of the plan is Ukraine’s intent to maintain a military force of 800,000 personnel during peacetime. This could be a pragmatic choice, as Ukrainian forces currently operate at that level amid ongoing conflict. Experts suggest that Russia might find this arrangement acceptable because it presents a lesser threat compared to NATO membership. As a result, Ukraine could bolster its self-defense capabilities without posing an offensive risk to Russian territory.
The agreement also discusses defense commitments likened to NATO’s Article 5. However, any automatic military obligations for the U.S. face constitutional hurdles. The U.S. Constitution assigns Congress the power to declare war, making such a provision nearly impossible to enforce. Historical precedents, like the failure of the Versailles Treaty, underline the complexities of binding agreements that would limit U.S. military decision-making.
Financial aspects of reconstruction funding, estimated at $800 billion, seem feasible. Potential resources could come from a combination of U.S. support, the World Bank, and Russian assets seized due to the war. However, the prospect of Ukraine joining the European Union remains uncertain. EU membership requires unanimous approval from all member states, a process that could take years, if not decades, and is vulnerable to political snags—particularly from nations like Hungary or Slovakia that may block Ukraine’s accession.
Another contentious point in the proposal involves a ceasefire that sets current front lines as de facto borders. For Ukraine, this means ceding control of roughly 20 percent of its territory, a politically sensitive move likely to be viewed as capitulating to aggression. Conversely, Russia would be relinquishing its ambition for complete control of Donetsk and Luhansk, making this arrangement unsatisfactory from both perspectives.
The framework also includes provisions for Russia to withdraw from occupied regions, which, while militarily possible, face significant political challenges. There are no strategic incentives for Russia to concede territory without guarantees or compensation. Furthermore, such withdrawals would prompt backlash from Russian leadership and degrade President Putin’s political standing if he is seen as losing ground.
Sanctions enforcement features prominently in the plan, yet the reality is more complex. Sustained political unity among governments is required to impose and uphold sanctions. Observations indicate that Europe is already feeling fatigue regarding sanctions, and U.S. administrations might shift their focus in the future. Without a strong political consensus, the effectiveness of sanctions could diminish over time, making compliance uncertain.
Controversially, the proposal contains a clause that prohibits Ukraine from using military force to recover territory lost under this agreement, even if Russia fails to uphold its side. Meanwhile, issues surrounding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant remain unresolved, with Ukraine favoring U.S. involvement in its management, while initial U.S. proposals included Russian oversight, which Ukraine opposes.
The Kremlin has already been briefed on this draft proposal, yet it has outright rejected claims of any breakthrough. A significant issue—Russia’s insistence that Ukraine relinquish territory in the Donbas—stands as a primary obstacle, effectively stalling the negotiation process. This situation renders the prospects for a meaningful peace agreement frustratingly limited and may reduce further dialogues to mere academic discussions.
In summary, Zelenskyy’s peace framework, while ambitious and multi-faceted, faces steep challenges. The complicated political landscape, coupled with entrenched positions on territorial integrity, creates significant obstacles to a successful resolution of the conflict. Each provision must navigate a maze of constitutional, political, and military considerations, raising the question of whether the proposed framework can substantively advance toward peace. The coming months will be pivotal in determining whether any meaningful discourse can replace the current impasse.
"*" indicates required fields
