Ukrainian and American officials met in Switzerland to discuss a 28-point proposal introduced by the White House, aiming to end the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The plan would require Ukraine to give up additional territory, restrict its military capabilities, and agree never to join NATO—terms that Ukrainian leaders have consistently rejected as equivalent to surrender.
President Trump initially set a Thursday deadline for Ukraine to accept the deal but has since indicated that this timeline is flexible.
Olga Kamenchuk from Northwestern University's School of Communication commented on the fluid nature of the negotiations: "Almost nothing in the leaked drafts is set in stone - even if one of them ends up being signed. Much of the public commentary treats the leaked negotiation blueprint as a fixed plan, but that fundamentally misunderstands how such frameworks work. Even if a draft were signed, almost all of provisions in the final agreement could still be renegotiated, amended, or withdrawn." She added, "The larger issue is that these negotiations are not yet 'ripe.' Neither side currently perceives the costs of fighting as outweighing the potential gains of continued war. Without that mutual perception, no draft - however detailed - will stop the conflict."
Ian Kelly, Ambassador (ret.) in Residence at Northwestern University, criticized several elements of the U.S.-drafted plan: “The most pernicious provisions of the U.S.-authored ‘28-point plan’ would require Ukraine to reduce its military capacity by a third, forgo cooperation with NATO, and de facto cede significant territory to Russia. Such moves would essentially reward Russia for its brutal aggression. Conceding sovereignty or territory to a stronger power would signal a dangerous return to a world where might makes right."
Kelly also highlighted changes in diplomatic practice: “Before this administration, the U.S. would consult with NATO allies before releasing a plan regarding European security. Also without precedent is the idea that Canada and the European allies were forced to issue their own counter proposal — this time presumably without U.S. input. While it seems that Secretary Rubio was able to walk back yesterday some of the more pro-Russian provisions, the damage has already been done to the once-traditional transatlantic solidarity in the face of Russian aggression.”
Journalists have been encouraged by Northwestern University to contact both Kamenchuk and Kelly for further comment or interviews regarding these developments.