The 28-point plan elaborated by U.S. and Russian envoys and presented to Ukraine this week came with deadlines and implicit threats. It was an implicit threat: “If you don’t register it, you risk having it destroyed.”
U.S. President Donald Trump said Friday that Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy “will like” the U.S. plan, suggesting he has no intention of negotiating and that it must be accepted by Thursday.
President Zelenskiy acknowledged this tough choice in a solemn address to the nation on Friday, presenting the plan as a choice between losing the United States as an ally and bowing to Russia’s demands, many of which met 28 points.
If Kiev were to lose U.S. support, the implications would be severe for arms supplies and access to information, exacerbating existing crises including a shortage of troops, financial difficulties, and deepening Ukrainian public distrust of a scandal-plagued presidency.
Above all, rejecting the proposal would signal an existential separation from the United States, with enormous strategic consequences for Ukraine and its European backers. That would risk the United States completely turning its back on the conflict, reneging on Ukraine’s security commitments, and telling not just Mr. Zelenskyy but also European countries that “you’re on your own.”
Without access to U.S. weapons, Ukraine will suffer, but not as much as it did three years ago. One reason for this is that conflicts have changed significantly. Tanks, anti-tank weapons and armored vehicles play a subordinate role to the ever-present drones.
And that’s partly because the arms pipeline from Europe has become larger than from the United States. From the start of the war until June 2025, Europe has allocated at least $40 billion in military aid, $5 billion more than the United States.
The loss of U.S. weapons would most likely affect Ukraine’s air defenses, including Patriot artillery batteries and missiles. President Zelenskiy has repeatedly appealed to the United States to strengthen its air defense system, but the Patriots lack one. Even if the United States were to cut off its own missiles and spare parts, European and other allies could continue to provide support.
Ukraine also has a limited supply of highly effective US ATACM missiles.
The Trump administration is increasingly willing to sell US weapons to a European-funded fund known as the Priority Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), worth about $90 billion. But if Kiev rejects the plan, it could punish Ukraine by abandoning it.
On the positive side, Ukraine has built a formidable drone and missile industry, even if it needs to scale up. Ukrainian authorities said 90% of the drones they use are Ukrainian-made.
The United States temporarily suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March after President Trump and President Zelensky’s infamous Oval Office meeting.
The exact nature of that cooperation has never been publicly revealed, but it likely includes early warning of Russian missile launches and real-time analysis of Russian military movements, which is important as Russian forces advance on some parts of the front.
In October, President Zelenskiy admitted that all of Ukraine’s defenses against Russian missiles (Patriot, NASAMS, IRIS-T) have limited data without US information, and that not enough information exists to ensure defense.
U.S. intelligence services are also being used to attack Ukraine deep inside Russia, including attacks on military and energy infrastructure, Ukrainian sources told CNN.
Europeans are improving their access to this information, but building and coordinating such capacity will take years.
man and money
Ukraine’s biggest problems are actually home-grown and cannot be solved by any amount of American tanks and missiles. The army is understaffed. Tens of thousands of soldiers became non-combatants in the first seven months of this year alone.
Many infantry units are severely understaffed, and lowering the draft age from 25 is seen as a political minefield.
If Kiev rejects the blueprint, U.S. support for its solvency could become another cost. The International Monetary Fund says Ukraine needs $65 billion in budget support next year alone. The European Union is struggling to agree on a way to use frozen Russian assets as some kind of loan guarantee.
The 28-point plan, the work of President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian official Kirill Dmitriev, threatens to disrupt delicate negotiations over the use of these assets.
“The $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction and investment in Ukraine. The U.S. will receive 50% of the profits from this operation.”
The plan claims that “frozen Russian funds held by Europe will be unfrozen,” even though those funds are beyond U.S. control and Europe is not participating in the plan.
The US-Russian plan (Issue 5) states that “Ukraine will receive reliable security,” but no details are provided.
Statements like “Russia is expected not to invade neighboring countries” (Issue 3) do not inspire confidence in Kiev.
According to some reports, an annex to the plan suggests that “a serious, planned and sustained armed attack by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine beyond the agreed cease-fire lines will be considered an attack that threatens the peace and security of the transatlantic community.”
CNN has not been able to confirm any such terms.
It is difficult to understand why President Zelenskiy would agree to the bare bones of a plan without precise and detailed guarantees approved by the US Congress to make it legally enforceable and backed by the threat of sanctions.
But rejection poses existential risks.
Long before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dream was to carve Europe from the United States. Since Trump took office, the Kremlin’s favorite theme has been to contrast his efforts to resolve conflicts with European “warmongers.”
The 28-point plan is a nod to Washington’s semi-indifferent view of NATO, the cornerstone of Europe’s peace for eight decades.
It states that “a dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, with the mediation of the United States,” to exchange the role of ally and the role of mediator.
European leaders, along with Japan and Canada, came as close to politely rejecting the plan as they said in a statement on Saturday that “additional work is needed.”
They added that they were “concerned about the proposed restrictions on the Ukrainian military” that would leave Ukraine vulnerable to attack.
Some Europeans consider this a cathartic moment.
“We have been repeatedly and clearly told that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, is Europe’s responsibility, and now it is,” Lithuania’s former foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said on Saturday.
Just a month ago, President Zelenskyy said in a phone call with President Trump that “we discussed opportunities to strengthen our air defense and the concrete agreements we are working on to ensure that. We have good options and solid ideas on how to truly strengthen our country.”
Those good options have evaporated.
The potential loss of weapons systems and information, and its immediate impact on the battlefield, which steadily tilts Russia’s course and Ukraine’s energy supplies, is extremely significant.
But that idea pales in comparison to the prospect that the U.S. government is prepared to retaliate against Putin’s aggression, shrug off its occupation of European territory, and leave the most successful peace alliance of modern times.
“Europe has a long tradition of great powers making deals over the heads of smaller nations, causing terrible suffering,” Anne Applebaum writes in the Atlantic.
“The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with its secret protocols brought about World War II. The Yalta Pact brought about the Cold War. If the Witkov-Dmitriev Pact survives, it will fit right into that tradition,” she says.
