By Ephraim Agbo
On 24 December 2025 President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly unveiled a revised, U.S.-backed 20-point peace framework intended to end Russia’s full-scale invasion. The document stitches together hard security guarantees, humanitarian commitments, economic reconstruction promises, and novel compromises over contested territory — while leaving the thorniest questions about control of land and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant unresolved.
Why this matters now
This draft is the product of intensive U.S.–Ukraine negotiations that pared an earlier 28-point text down to 20 items intended to be more politically and diplomatically sellable. Washington’s active role gives the document real muscle: the White House and other Western capitals would be central to enforcement and implementation. That U.S. imprimatur raises the stakes — it shifts a bilateral Kyiv–Moscow dynamic into a tripartite one where Western guarantors are formally baked into the framework.
The architecture of the deal
1) Reaffirmation of Ukrainian sovereignty and a legally binding non-aggression commitment
The draft begins with a formal reaffirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and proposes a comprehensive non-aggression agreement between Russia, Ukraine and European partners. In plain terms: Russia would accept, in writing, Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders as the baseline for future settlement mechanisms. This is the agreement’s political foundation — everything else (security guarantees, zones, reconstruction) flows from acceptance of that baseline.
2) Security guarantees and “NATO-style” deterrence without immediate membership
A central tradeoff in the document is security: the plan envisages formal security guarantees from the U.S., European states and other partners that replicate the deterrent logic of Article 5 — joint response commitments — while not making NATO membership a precondition of the agreement. In practice this is meant to reassure Kyiv that it will not be left alone if Moscow re-arms or attacks again, yet allows protracted negotiations over alliance membership to proceed on a separate track.
3) A Peace Council and Western chairmanship of enforcement
The plan creates a Peace Council charged with implementation and verification; according to the draft the U.S. president would chair it. The council would have powers to monitor compliance, order sanctions or other remedial steps for violations, and supervise third-party peacekeepers and observers. That design transforms enforcement from ad hoc measures to a formal, politically-accountable multilateral mechanism.
4) Ceasefire, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms
A full ceasefire is conditioned on the signing and ratification of the framework; the draft proposes layered monitoring: satellite, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), third-party observers on the ground, and inspection regimes to verify withdrawals. The plan ties these mechanisms to the Peace Council so violations can lead to pre-agreed punishments.
5) Troop posture and Ukraine’s peacetime force
The draft explicitly contemplates Ukraine maintaining a large peacetime military — roughly 800,000 personnel — coupled with demobilization rules in specific de-militarized zones. That figure signals Kyiv’s insistence that any deal must leave it defensible, and it also frames what Western guarantees would be expected to deter future aggression.
6) Territory, demilitarized zones, and referendums — the hardest bargains
Territory is where the draft gets most delicate. The plan opens the door to creative compromises rather than immediate, unilateral territorial concessions: proposals include demilitarized “free economic zones” in contested regions, international peacekeepers or neutral administrators for specific sites, and local referenda in areas whose status would be changed. Zelensky insisted that any change in Ukrainian territory would require a national referendum — a political safeguard aimed at domestic legitimacy. But how those referendums would be run, who would control the regions while they were organized, and whether Russia would accept such sequencing remains unresolved.
7) Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant — competing proposals, no settlement yet
The plan contains competing management formulas for the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant: U.S. drafts reportedly proposed a tripartite supervisory mechanism (Ukraine, U.S., Russia), while Kyiv prefers a U.S.–Ukraine joint operation or international control under strict Ukrainian sovereignty. The text makes clear the plant is a negotiating hotspot; the draft does not contain a final, binding operational model acceptable to all parties.
8) Humanitarian clauses — POWs, hostages, return of displaced people
The draft creates a humanitarian committee to arrange prisoner-of-war exchanges, oversee returns of civilians, coordinate demining, and set standards for humanitarian corridors. These are operationally urgent items that can produce early, tangible confidence-building measures if implemented quickly.
9) Elections, rule of law and de-occupation timelines
The draft stipulates post-agreement elections in Ukraine and timelines for restoring sovereign control in recaptured or disputed areas — but it places caveats: timelines depend on verified withdrawals, security guarantees and demining. The sequencing of withdrawal → verification → elections is a legal hinge: each step’s timetable will determine whether the deal solidifies or is used tactically by either side.
10) Reconstruction, investment, and trade packages
Zelensky’s proposal ties a major reconstruction plan (figures cited in public reporting approach $800 billion in investment and aid over time) to the peace framework — a carrot meant to make the political costs of renewed conflict unattractive. The plan includes accelerated trade and investment agreements to seed recovery and anchor Ukraine to Europe economically.
How the draft shifts bargaining leverage
-
Rebalancing the negotiation space. By embedding the U.S. and European guarantors directly into the architecture, Kyiv shifts some of the burden of enforcement (and political risk) onto Western capitals — which may make concessions more credible to Kyiv domestically but will force the West to accept long-term involvement.
-
Mix of carrots and binders. The plan pairs generous reconstruction and trade offers with formalized security guarantees and a Peace Council empowered to sanction violators. That design tries to make the cost of recidivist aggression higher and recovery more attractive. The effectiveness of those carrots depends on Western political will and financial capacity — not guaranteed across electorates.
-
Territory as the decisive hazard. Wherever implementation requires ceding de facto control or long transitions for Russian-held areas, the risk of breakdown spikes. Kiev’s insistence on referendums is both a domestic political necessity and an operational complication: organizing free and fair votes in contested zones will require time, security and uncontested procedures — conditions Russia may not accept.
-
Zaporizhzhia — a nuclear wildcard. Any ambiguity about the plant’s control or management could produce catastrophic political and technical consequences. International inspectors and transparent oversight are necessary but require Moscow’s buy-in; without it, the clause alone could freeze talks.
-
The long-tail of enforcement. A Peace Council chaired by the U.S. is only as credible as the chair’s willingness to act. If the U.S. or Europeans balk at sustained involvement, guarantees are weak. Conversely, long-term Western commitment raises domestic political costs in guarantor countries and will be a bargaining point in capitals.
Moscow’s response and the near-term outlook
As of the public unveiling, Moscow had been formally presented with the draft and was “reviewing” it; no acceptance had been announced. Russian statements have been cautious: while acknowledging talks were ongoing, Kremlin sources described “some differences” on territorial questions and the nuclear plant. The lack of an immediate Russian “yes” — and continued battlefield activity reported on the same day — means the draft’s fate depends on a narrow political window: whether leaders decide a negotiated political settlement is preferable to open-ended attrition.
What to watch next (short list for the reader)
- Moscow’s formal reply and whether it signals conditional acceptance or flat rejection.
- Textual clarifications on the Zaporizhzhia plant: tripartite control vs. internationalization vs. Ukrainian supervision.
- Dates and sequencing: does the plan set fixed timetables for withdrawals, demilitarization, and referenda, or leave them open?
- Western domestic politics: will the U.S. and EU capitals commit the long political will and resources the Peace Council model presumes?
The Full 20-point in summary
Below is a concise compilation of the 20 points as publicly described by Zelensky and reported by press briefings and outlets. (This is a synthesis of the president’s statements and the text published by press organizations — it is not the legal text of the draft.)
- Reaffirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- A comprehensive, legally binding non-aggression agreement.
- Security guarantees from the U.S., NATO partners and European states (Article-5 style commitments).
- Creation of a Peace Council chaired by the U.S. president to oversee implementation.
- A full ceasefire to be enacted upon signing and verification.
- Monitoring and verification mechanisms (satellite, on-ground observers).
- Demilitarized zones and procedures for withdrawals in certain areas.
- Provisions for demilitarized “free economic zones” in contested regions.
- Specific arrangements for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant (subject to negotiation).
- Return and reintegration of displaced civilians, demining plans.
- Humanitarian committee for POW/hostage exchanges.
- Timetabled post-agreement elections and judicial/constitutional measures.
- Ukraine’s right to pursue EU (and later NATO) integration preserved.
- Ukrainian army peacetime establishment at around 800,000 personnel.
- Massive international reconstruction program and investment pledges.
- Trade agreements and accelerated economic integration with Europe.
- Sanctions enforcement mechanism tied to Peace Council findings.
- Guarantees for minority rights and regional autonomy mechanisms where applicable.
- Sequencing rules (withdrawal → verification → elections) to prevent manipulation.
- Ratification and signature protocol — leaders’ signatures required (Ukraine, Russia, U.S., European representatives).
Bottom line
Zelensky’s 20-point draft is a political masterstroke in that it recasts the conflict as a multilateral problem with explicit Western stakes, pairs security guarantees with economic incentive packages, and tries to convert military attrition into enforceable political architecture. But it is also a fragile bargain: territory and nuclear safety remain unresolved, and enforcement depends on Western commitment over years — precisely the variable most susceptible to domestic political shifts. If Moscow accepts the framework in whole or in carefully sequenced parts, it could produce a durable, if imperfect, peace. If it rejects the draft or negotiates only cosmetic changes, the plan could harden frontlines and entrench frozen conflicts masked as “peace.”
No comments:
Post a Comment