In recent days, more and more Western media outlets have been receiving details about the 28-point US-Russian peace proposal developed by Steve Witkoff, the US Middle East and – since the summer – peace envoy, and Russian Kirill Dmitriyev, which aims to end the war in Ukraine.

The proposal developed by the two countries would include, for example, items such as:

• Donbas would be completely in Russian hands, in exchange for which it would pay a rent to Ukraine, but there would be a demilitarized zone in it.
• Russian would be made an official language in Ukraine, and the Russian Orthodox Church would be recognized in the occupied territories.
• The size of the Ukrainian army would be maximized at 400,000 people, which would roughly halve the current strength, while Ukraine would be banned from possessing missiles with a range of more than 100 kilometers.
• Foreign soldiers would also not be allowed to be stationed in Ukraine.

Regarding the proposal, Dmitriyev told the American Axios that he is satisfied with it and optimistic, as he feels that the Russian position is now understood and heard. However, the Ukrainians understandably see the opposite: they do not support the proposal, since the draft in many cases contains previous Russian ultimatums. According to plans, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Witkoff were to meet in person in Turkey on Wednesday, but the Ukrainian president ultimately canceled this, sending his national security adviser, Rustam Utamov, to the meeting instead.

At present, much is still unclear about the proposal, as we only know part of its content from information leaked to the press – it is no coincidence that on Thursday, the European Union's foreign ministers assessed it without any specifics before the Foreign Affairs Council, emphasizing that only an agreement that enjoys the support and consent of Ukraine and the European Union is acceptable.

Anton Bendarzhevsky, an expert on the post-Soviet region and director of the Oeceonomus Economic Research Foundation, told Index that parts of the proposal are only known from the press, not from official documents, but:

The plan that has been leaked looks more like a Russian ultimatum, which is unacceptable to Ukraine.

Russian ultimatums with a little something extra

As Bendarzhevsky reminded, its content is practically identical to the ultimatums already issued by Russia during the 2022 negotiations, as they demand, for example, the officialization of the Russian language and the acceptance of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as limitations on the size of the Ukrainian army and its weapons, while the proposal also requires Ukraine to give up territories that are not currently under Russian control.

However, compared to the previously known Russian ultimatums, it is a significant shift on Moscow's part, as instead of four territories, Russia would now settle for two, the Donetsk and Luhansk regions - collectively known as Donbass - and the size of the Ukrainian army would be limited to 400,000 instead of 80,000, which is still half of its current strength. In addition, it seems that Russia no longer claims the entirety of two other regions, Zaporizhia and Kherson, so in theory they could even return territories from there to Ukraine, but the details are not yet known.

These are all points that the Russians demanded and are unacceptable to Ukraine. Kiev cannot accept Russia interfering in the functioning of the Ukrainian state to the extent of allowing a Russian-controlled church or giving the Russian language a state role. This is unacceptable to the Ukrainian leadership in its current form

–summarized the director of the Oeceonomus Economic Research Foundation. At the same time, he added,

There are parts of the proposal that Kiev may view positively, but we don't know much about them at the moment.

For example, the United States and European countries would provide Ukraine with a security guarantee, which Kiev has been striving for for years, but we still do not know exactly what elements this would consist of and what it would cover.

In addition, the"renting" of Donbass is also an interesting question: this would essentially be reparations for Ukraine from Russia, but at the moment we do not know the details of this, so we do not know how much and for how long Russia would pay for it - according to the expert, this is essentially a loophole, which Kiev can say is Russian reparations, but since the proposal would be a lease, Moscow could claim that this is not reparations, but a kind of lease construction, so it does not have to admit that it was the aggressor during the war.

According to Bendarzhevsky, despite the inclusion of these long-standing demands and demands by Kiev, this is still unacceptable for a country fighting a patriotic war, and the proposal can actually make sense if the parties consider it a basis for bargaining.

This proposal can only make sense if it is a bargaining chip and not a package of fixed program points, because this is currently unacceptable to Ukraine

– says Bendarzhevsky.

Paper can hold a lot of things.

When asked what the American idea behind an offer that is completely unacceptable to Ukraine in its current form could be, Bendarzhevsky replied that the United States continues to try and try to manage the war and end it from different directions - as is known, before Witkoff and Dimitriev met in Miami at the end of October, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Russian Lukoil and Rosneft, and the Pentagon also gave the green light to the Tomahawk missiles that the Ukrainians have long desired

According to the expert, the Americans may view the proposal as a bargaining chip rather than a dictate imposed on Ukraine. For example, the Russians may still concede points related to the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as restrictions on the Ukrainian army, after which Ukraine could frame this as the best possible outcome at home.

Donald Trump probably sees that, given the current state of the war, the Russians will acquire Donbass one way or another, meaning that they are definitely trying to steer Ukraine in the direction of accepting the transfer or loss of certain territories on territorial issues. Everything else is more of a bargaining chip

– Bendarzhevsky expressed his views, according to which if Ukraine managed to remove these points from the proposal, then Zelensky would be able to sell the renunciation of Donbass more easily at home,

while from Moscow's side, this would appear to be a compromise externally and a diplomatic success internally, as they would receive the entirety of Donbass, which is the country's goal.

When asked if they finally agreed on a compromise, what would be the guarantee that it would be adhered to – after all, the Minsk agreements did not mean the end of the fighting in Donbass, nor did they deter Russia from invading – and could truly mean a long and lasting peace between the parties, Bendarzhevsky replied:

There are no guarantees, paper can withstand a lot.

According to Bendarzhevsky, it is currently unknown who would monitor whether the parties would comply with an agreement, and what kind of retaliation would result if someone violated it: for example, Ukraine could circumvent the limitation on the size of its army by having 400,000 soldiers on paper, while the remaining soldiers would be presented as members of other armed forces, such as border guards.

Likewise, without knowing the guarantees that guarantee Ukraine's security, we do not know whether Russia would actually abide by its promise not to station troops in the demilitarized zone in Donbas and not to attack Ukraine again in the future.

Donbass is of particular importance to both sides not only from a political but also from a military perspective, and for this reason the demilitarized zone would be important.

After Donbass, the terrain is completely flat, there are no built-up Ukrainian defenses or natural geographical obstacles. Thus, if Donbass falls into Russian hands, the way into the interior of Ukraine would be opened for the Russian army.

According to Bendarzhevsky, it is also important for this reason that there should be a clause that no Russian soldiers should be present in Donbas, because then this fear could disappear. However, the biggest question is whether the Russians would comply with this, and who would enforce it with them.

Moreover, even if Russia were to undertake this, it could still get around it if the"little green men", i.e. Russian soldiers without identification, appeared again - as in the 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula, which violated international law - or if Russian-speaking volunteers took up arms instead of the Russian army, who fought in Luhansk and Donetsk from 2014, officially independently of the Russian army and state, but in practice with their coordination.

Enforcement is a separate issue, but probably the most important thing for the United States at this stage is not the future of the treaty, but rather ending the war and ending the fighting altogether

– summarized Anton Bendarzhevsky, president of the Oeceonomus Economic Research Foundation.

Regarding the current state of the war, Bendarzhevsky said that the fact that Pokrovsk may slowly fall into Russian hands could bring the Russians closer to their goal of capturing Donbass, but the potential loss of the city should not be overestimated.

Every fortification that protects Ukrainian territory helps Ukrainian defense, and the loss of every such territory weakens Ukrainians, but it will not cause the collapse of the Ukrainian army - according to him, the future loss of Pokrovsk is not a turning point, but the natural course of the war.

According to the expert, the greatest threat to the Ukrainian military on the front line is if Russian soldiers continue towards Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, which if they can approach from multiple directions after successful Russian attacks, will put the city in a difficult position to defend.