Trump's peace plan heaps pressure on Ukraine to freeze the conflict

Editor's Note: Zhao Huirong is a research fellow and director at the Institute of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On November 20, 2025, the Trump administration put forward a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine aimed at putting an end to hostilities with Russia. The plan asks Kyiv to effectively recognize Russian-controlled territories, codify non-accession to NATO in its Constitution, and reduce its military to 600,000 troops, among other requirements. The proposal serves both as a U.S. lever on Ukraine and a move to bring about a frozen conflict sooner rather than later. It also exposes multiple policy rifts within the United States and between the U.S. and Ukraine, as well as between the U.S. and Europe, making it an unlikely blueprint for a final settlement. Taking into account battlefield dynamics and the U.S. political calendar, the conflict is highly likely to enter a stage of partial freeze before the U.S. mid-term elections in November 2026.

The plan has faced opposition from U.S. domestic political forces, Ukraine and European countries. U.S. establishment lawmakers and mainstream media have voiced concerns that the plan will erode Washington's credibility among allies and weaken its long-term deterrence. Ukraine argues the proposal runs counter to its red lines on territorial integrity and sovereignty, while strong public resistance to territorial concessions makes such political costs unbearable for any Ukrainian leader. Many European countries see Ukraine as a front line for Europe's security and fear that curbs on Ukraine's military capabilities could create long-term security risks. They are also dissatisfied with Washington's unilateral approach to steering the conflict-resolution process. In response, several European states jointly introduced a 24-point peace plan that removes prior recognition of territorial changes and avoids imposing limits on Ukraine's military and defense industry. Against these divergences, the U.S.' 28-point peace plan can serve only as a draft for negotiations rather than the final agreement.

The dual intentions behind the Trump administration's proposal are evident: to exert maximum pressure on Ukraine, push Kyiv toward further concessions, campaign under the banner of "promises made, promises kept" in the mid-terms, as well as alleviate Europe's security burden and reduce risks in time. The U.S. set November 27 as the deadline for Ukraine's response – a coercive posture reminiscent of the fallout from the heated February 2025 White House meeting between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, after which Washington threatened to halt aid and ultimately forced Kyiv to sign a minerals agreement. At a deeper level, the administration seeks to adjust to shifts in the international balance of power and concentrate strategic resources to reinforce regional dominance. The U.S. proposal prompted emergency consultations in Geneva among the United States, Ukraine and major European powers. Following the talks, Washington and Kyiv issued a joint statement saying they had reached an updated peace framework and would continue intensive consultations, with key issues to be settled by the presidents. Though core differences remain unresolved, the process has objectively hastened a truce.

Overall, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is highly likely to reach a phased freeze in the form of a "line-of-contact ceasefire" before the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026. On the battlefield, Russia currently holds a relative advantage and continues to erode Ukraine's combat capacity, making Kyiv's situation increasingly difficult. Although Ukraine and Europe retain some willingness and capability to fight, a major deterioration on the battlefield would force Kyiv to compromise to avoid greater losses. Politically, the Trump administration is expected to intensify pressure on Ukraine and may adjust aid levels to compel concessions. Under mounting internal and external pressure, Ukraine is unlikely to abandon core demands such as territorial sovereignty, but concessions in non-core areas are highly probable.

It should be made clear that such a freeze does not mean the fundamental issues have been resolved. Core divergences over territory and security guarantees will remain unresolved, and no qualitative change is expected in the deeper Russia-Ukraine contradictions, Russia-Europe confrontation, or Russia-U.S. strategic rivalry. Going forward, diplomatic maneuvering outside the battlefield will become more intense. The new geopolitical landscape formed after a freeze in the conflict will not only leave Europe in a long-term security limbo, but also further reshape the global distribution of strategic power.