Although it is still unclear whether the 28-point plan that has been published—which is said to have been prepared by representatives of Donald Trump and the Kremlin—constitutes the final, definitive version of the original plan, if its contents are assumed to reflect the original plan, it effectively represents a roadmap for consolidating Russia’s advances and recording Ukraine’s strategic retreat. This framework primarily reflects Trump’s desire to claim a “personal victory” in foreign policy.

A Plan for Peace or a Record of Achievement?

At the core of this plan is the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk—regions that have been outside Ukraine’s control since 2014 or have been the site of major battles over the past two years. The ceding of the remaining Donbas, the stabilization of frontlines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and strict limitations on the capabilities of the Ukrainian military would effectively collapse Kyiv’s defensive and industrial structure strategically.

These measures, combined with a requirement to enshrine a “non-alignment with NATO” clause in Ukraine’s constitution, would severely constrain the country’s security future in an unprecedented way. In exchange for these extensive concessions, the U.S. has promised to release part of Russia’s frozen assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction, ease sanctions, and facilitate Russia’s return to the G8.

The combination of these concessions clearly demonstrates that Trump is not primarily focused on Ukraine’s demands or on designing a sustainable security framework; rather, he is pursuing a project that would enshrine his name as the “architect of peace”—even if that peace is based on the retreat of an allied country and the consolidation of Russian military gains.

Russian Advances and Strategic Success

On the ground, the reality is that Russia has managed to advance significant parts of its military and political objectives over the past two years. Consolidating control over eastern regions, establishing a deep defensive belt, expanding mobilization capacity, and leveraging a broad defense industry have placed Moscow in a position to overshadow negotiations.

By exploiting Ukraine’s military and economic attrition, as well as internal divisions in Europe and the U.S., Russia now speaks from a position of power regarding the future of the war. Contrary to the West’s initial assessment in 2022, the Russian system not only did not collapse, but it multiplied its military-industrial capacity, redesigned its supply lines with China and Central Asia, and managed the war of attrition to its advantage. Today, many elements of the peace plan indicate that Washington—whether deliberately or inadvertently—effectively legitimizes a substantial portion of Russia’s gains.

Zelensky: From Dreaming of the West to a Crisis of Legitimacy

A key point that must be noted is the approach of Volodymyr Zelensky: a president who, hoping for integration into the Western bloc and based on a flawed understanding of power dynamics in Eastern Europe, engaged in an all-out confrontation with Russia. By relying entirely on U.S. and European support, without a realistic understanding of the West’s limitations, Zelensky effectively laid the groundwork for a long and bloody war.

He assumed that NATO membership or unconditional Western military support could shift the balance, whereas neither Washington nor Brussels were ever ready to pay the high costs of a full-scale confrontation with Russia.

The result of this miscalculation has been extensive human and financial losses, economic erosion in Ukraine, a sharp decline in the working population, and the migration of millions of citizens. Today, Ukraine faces deep and undeniable problems both on the battlefield and in the political arena. Zelensky’s opposition to the peace plan is understandable, as it effectively undermines Ukraine’s independence and national dignity. However, this opposition does not alter Kyiv’s strategic position: Ukraine currently lacks the tools to influence the final decisions of the major powers.

When Trust in Great Powers Turns Countries into “Bargaining Chips”

Zelensky’s outright rejection sends a clear message: relying solely on external support, without domestic investment in security, leaves countries highly vulnerable. The U.S., through this plan, has shown that even the closest allies can be sacrificed when larger interests are at stake.

Ukraine is now in a position where a significant portion of its territory, population, and military capacity has been weakened, leaving it almost powerless to resist a deal between Trump and Russia.

Ukraine’s experience serves as a serious warning to all countries that entrust their security to external actors: if independence and territorial integrity are not built on internal costs, defense capacity, political cohesion, and national reliance, a country’s security and territory can easily become bargaining chips in geopolitical games.

The Trump plan, combined with Ukraine’s current ground and political realities, reveals a bitter but clear truth: international politics is not a field of dreams—it is a field of power. In this arena, a country that does not rely on its own strength will inevitably have to rely on the decisions of others.