Three drafts in four days: what are the key points of the peace negotiations in Ukraine?

BarcelonaWith the pressure of an ultimatum issued by Donald Trump expiring this Thursday, the diplomatic machinery involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in the war in Ukraine is working at full speed. Since the end of last week, at least three different drafts have been written. The first one leaked to the press was a 28-point plan agreed upon by Washington and MoscowThis proposal was quickly rejected by Kyiv and Brussels, which accused the Trump administration of completely dancing to the Kremlin's tune. On Sunday, Reuters published details of a 28-point European counterproposal drawn up by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. A point-by-point comparison makes it clear which elements are the most sensitive, those that could stall negotiations toward a ceasefire: the cession of Ukrainian territory to Russia, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, amnesty for all those involved in the war, and a deadline for holding elections in the country.

As published by Financial TimesAccording to reports citing Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kislitsya, the United States and Ukraine drafted a new 19-point text on Sunday, though it leaves the most sensitive issues for discussion between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. Each side will now take the document to Washington and Kyiv to brief their respective presidents, and the Trump administration is expected to try to advance talks with Moscow. Kislitsya stated that the new draft bears "very little resemblance" to the original version agreed upon by Russia and the United States. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the significant change from the original plan. All of this suggests that the Kremlin will reject it. Moscow has already been quick to make it clear that it considers the European counterproposal "unacceptable" and has asserted that it will only work according to the first plan negotiated by the envoys of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev. "It was a completely Russian plan, drawn up by two businessmen who couldn't care less about ideology or politics," Carmen Claudín, a senior research associate at CIDOB and an expert on Russia and the post-Soviet space, told ARA. One of the aspects not currently included in either the US-Ukrainian draft or the European counterproposal is the cession of Ukrainian territory. At yesterday's meeting in Geneva, the Ukrainians stated that they lacked the authority to make decisions regarding the territory, as their constitution requires a referendum. The Russian-American proposal foreseesinternational recognition of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as Russian territoryand the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the areas of Donbas still controlled by Kyiv, to convert them into a demilitarized zone belonging to the Russian Federation. In exchange, the front would be frozen at the line of contact, and Russia would relinquish the parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia currently under Kyiv's control.

The European proposal is much more ambiguous and states only that negotiations on territorial exchanges will begin from the line of contact, i.e., the existing front line, and that Ukraine commits not to recapture its occupied territory by military means.

Recognition of the Russian occupation

“We would agree that the ceasefire should be implemented taking the front line into account, even though it is a very painful concession for Ukraine. But we are realistic and understand that, if there is no additional pressure [on Russia] or additional support from the West, we must accept it,” the politician stated in ARA. However, he emphasized that there is a red line: legal recognition of the Russian occupation. Claudín agreed: “The lack of international recognition would make the concession more acceptable to the population.” Furthermore, the researcher warned that if such recognition were to occur—as the Kremlin intends—it would set a very dangerous precedent for international law.

Liana Fix, senior researcher for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), also believes that the cession of Ukrainian territories that Russia has not managed to occupy would be “totally unacceptable” to Ukraine. "Even if it is to become a demilitarized buffer zone, there is no mechanism that can prevent a Russian invasion. Past conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine have shown that Russia does not respect demilitarized zones," he writes in an article on the website of the think tank.

They will warn that what Russia is doing with its supposed peace plan is "a psychological operation, a disinformation campaign aimed at destabilization." Journalist Anne Appelbaum, a leading expert on Russia and the former Soviet space, shares this view, going so far as to place this initial plan, which she calls the "Witkoff-Dmitriev Pact," on the same level as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, with its secret protocols, leads us to the 'Cold' secret protocol. The Witkoff-Dmitriev Pact, if it holds, will fit perfectly into this tradition," she writes in The Atlantic

NATO expansion as an excuse

The other key aspect of the negotiations is Ukraine's potential entry into NATO. The Russian-American proposal included a clause stating that the Atlantic Alliance "will not expand further," a point removed in the European counterproposal. According to Claudín, this is one of the crucial points, "not so that Russia feels threatened by NATO, but because it could strengthen Ukraine." "It's not included with the European Union because we are nobody in terms of security," he adds. Claudín also points to the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine as one of the most important elements of the negotiations: "Ukraine not occupied by Russia can never be occupied again. This must clearly be a red line for Kyiv; it's an existential interest. Anything that doesn't include this is unacceptable." The European counterproposal doesn't include many changes from the first draft, but it does add that the United States should protect Ukraine with a system similar to NATO's Article 5, that is, with military intervention in the event of another attack on the country.

Other relevant changes between the two drafts concern future elections in Ukraine and the peacetime troop limit for the Ukrainian army. In this regard, the plan negotiated with Moscow demanded presidential elections within a maximum of 100 days after a ceasefire agreement was reached, while the European draft eliminates this timeframe. Regarding the armed forces, the European draft states they should be limited to 800,000 troops, 200,000 more than the initial draft.

Pressure from China

Claudín is skeptical about the chances of progress in this round of negotiations. "If there were seasoned, serious diplomatic and political teams, they could navigate all these aspects, the concessions from each side, but that's not the case," she laments, referring to Witkoff and Dmitriev. "The only hope would be if Beijing put a little pressure on the Kremlin," she says. She believes that Xi Jinping, in part, benefits from the conflict because it keeps Washington distracted and allows him to reap economic benefits, but at the same time, it's a source of constant instability that has lasted almost four years. Furthermore, she points out that the worsening Russian economy and its effect on citizens could also be a factor that facilitates an agreement: "If China exerts even minimal pressure, Putin might receive some wise advice that people are already in a somewhat critical situation. He could then present the achievement as a victory, and perhaps progress could be made toward an agreement."