US and Ukraine revise 28-point peace plan in Geneva
If you’ve seen headlines saying Geneva talks made progress, here’s what that actually means. US and Ukrainian teams met through Sunday, said they narrowed differences, and agreed to keep working on a revised peace framework. President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed movement but repeated that Ukraine won’t accept any deal that rewards invasion. US officials called the day the most productive in months, while withholding specifics.
Who was at the table matters. These rounds were US–Ukraine only; Russia wasn’t in the room. The Kremlin said it hadn’t received an official update and, as of Monday 24 November, no new US–Russia negotiators’ meeting was on the calendar. That tells you talks are still in a drafting phase rather than closing a deal.
Where talks are stuck is clear: territory and long‑term security. Kyiv says borders cannot be changed by force and resists any recognition of Russian control in the east. European allies worry that limits on Ukraine’s army or a ban on joining NATO would leave the country exposed in future.
What the original 28‑point draft contained, according to multiple outlets, explains the backlash. It reportedly treated Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk as de facto Russian, froze lines in parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and created a demilitarised buffer in Donetsk. It also capped Ukraine’s forces and barred NATO membership, while sketching a path to re‑admit Russia into global forums. These points are the ones now being revised.
Key term, demilitarised zone: an area agreed by warring sides where no troops, weapons or military activity are allowed. In the leaked draft, the Donetsk buffer would be labelled Russian territory in law even though no soldiers could enter it-one reason Kyiv objects.
Key term, NATO accession: joining NATO requires consensus among all current members-every ally must agree. That’s why wording about Ukraine’s membership matters so much; a promise to “never join” would lock out a path that, under NATO rules, is decided by allies, not Russia.
Europe’s counter‑proposal, prepared by the UK, France and Germany, tries to rebalance the draft. It raises a peacetime cap on Ukraine’s armed forces to around 800,000, removes recognition of Russian‑held areas, starts any territorial talks from the current line of contact, and argues for a US‑backed security guarantee modelled on collective defence.
How Washington is framing it: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday’s Geneva session was the most meaningful so far and that negotiators made “tremendous” progress, but he also said he hadn’t seen Europe’s draft when asked. Separately, he has been telling lawmakers the leaked text isn’t the administration’s final position, amid claims it started as a Russian wish list.
What President Trump is signalling: he has floated a Thursday deadline for Ukraine to respond but has also said the plan is not his “final offer,” suggesting wiggle room if talks keep moving. That mixed message has raised pressure while leaving time for edits.
Moscow’s line so far: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Russia is waiting for formal texts, while senior aide Yuri Ushakov has already dismissed the European counter‑proposal as “unconstructive.” Russia’s absence from Geneva underscores that essential disagreements-territory and Ukraine’s security-are unresolved.
What it means legally: the UN Charter prohibits taking land by force and sets a high bar against changing borders through coercion. That’s why “territorial integrity” appears in almost every statement from Kyiv and its partners-and why proposals seen as legitimising annexations draw strong pushback.
What happens next and what to watch: Zelensky and Trump are expected to speak, and a new US–Ukraine draft could be sent to Moscow afterwards. Until Russia engages, expect more rewriting around three big questions: will any text avoid recognising occupied land, will NATO language reflect alliance consensus rules, and will security guarantees be strong enough to deter a future attack. For now, US and Ukrainian teams say work continues.
Learning box-read the terms like a negotiator. “Security guarantees” range from promises of weapons and training to commitments that resemble collective defence. “Buffer zone” sounds safe, but who polices it, who owns it in law, and what happens if it’s violated are the test questions you should always ask. Those details decide whether a ceasefire holds or collapses.
Learning box-NATO in Ukraine’s constitution. Since 2019, Ukraine’s constitution has fixed a strategic course towards EU and NATO membership. Any demand to reverse that would require changing the constitution, not just signing a deal-another reason Kyiv resists hard bans written into an agreement.