Digest of Russian media
‘Breakthrough Unlikely in Near Future’: Russia Reacts to New US Peace Push in Ukraine
November 25, 2025
Analysts from Russian state think tanks are skeptical of the chances of success for the latest, 28-point US peace plan. They argue the document is unacceptable for Kyiv, flag the risk of potential revanchism and doubt it will address the so-called “root causes” of the Russia-Ukraine war.
On November 20, Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Honcharenko leaked, and the US media outlet Axios published, a 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine. It envisages recognizing de facto Russian control over the Donbas, dividing the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions along the current line of contact, formal renunciation of NATO aspirations by Kyiv and limiting the size of the Ukrainian armed forces. It also calls for frozen Russian financial assets to be used, under US leadership, to rebuild Ukraine, with “profits” allocated to the US.
As many analysts have pointed out, the plan is based largely on Kremlin negotiating positions, several of which the Ukrainian leadership has called unacceptable. In addition, European politicians have likewise expressed dissatisfaction with the concessions demanded of Kyiv.
The plan was reportedly developed by the White House and Kremlin envoys for Ukraine talks, Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, respectively. It was likely the latter who leaked the draft to the US media. The extent to which Witkoff and Dmitriev coordinated with their political leaderships and foreign-policy-making institutions remains unclear. Two US senators, for example, said the leaked text amounted to nothing more than a Russian “wish list.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio later denied these reports on X, clarifying that the peace plan had been “authored” by the US and was based on “input from the Russian side… [and] on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”
As many analysts have pointed out, the plan is based largely on Kremlin negotiating positions, several of which the Ukrainian leadership has called unacceptable. In addition, European politicians have likewise expressed dissatisfaction with the concessions demanded of Kyiv.
The plan was reportedly developed by the White House and Kremlin envoys for Ukraine talks, Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, respectively. It was likely the latter who leaked the draft to the US media. The extent to which Witkoff and Dmitriev coordinated with their political leaderships and foreign-policy-making institutions remains unclear. Two US senators, for example, said the leaked text amounted to nothing more than a Russian “wish list.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio later denied these reports on X, clarifying that the peace plan had been “authored” by the US and was based on “input from the Russian side… [and] on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”
Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump
The White House
The White House
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the nation on November 21, calling the current situation “one of the most difficult moments in our history” and announcing that Kyiv would engage with the plan. A few days later, Ukrainian Presidential Office chief Andriy Yermak traveled to Geneva to discuss possible adjustments to several provisions with Rubio. Following these consultations, another Zelensky adviser stated that the 28-point plan “no longer exists in the form everyone previously saw.” The FT reports that the draft has now been pared back to 19 points.
Vladimir Putin reacted cautiously to the original 28-point plan. He said the document could serve as the basis for a settlement while stressing that further talks would be needed to reach a final version.
The Russian leader’s restrained and laconic response, as well as the lack of more substantive comments, raises questions about the extent to which the Kremlin is satisfied with a document that many observers have criticized for being excessively tilted toward Russia.
Vladimir Putin reacted cautiously to the original 28-point plan. He said the document could serve as the basis for a settlement while stressing that further talks would be needed to reach a final version.
The Russian leader’s restrained and laconic response, as well as the lack of more substantive comments, raises questions about the extent to which the Kremlin is satisfied with a document that many observers have criticized for being excessively tilted toward Russia.
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet during the Alaska summit
Benjamin D Applebaum / US Department of Defense
Benjamin D Applebaum / US Department of Defense
Russian analysts working for state institutions point to Moscow’s long-standing demand to eliminate the “root causes” of the conflict, meaning that any deal in Ukraine is linked to a comprehensive reassessment of Russia-West relations.
“If Russia believes this plan will eliminate the root causes of the Ukraine conflict, then it will be [considered] acceptable. After that, it would be appropriate to move toward a regime of peaceful coexistence in Europe. We need to return to our foundations and build a European security system, and this is a major, separate issue that must be addressed,” said Sergei Oznobishchev, head of the military-political research and analysis at the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO).
“I believe this plan still fails to resolve the fundamental contradictions within the European security architecture. Tensions will remain, in part because the infrastructure of NATO and the EU is oriented toward deterring Russia, a course that is extremely difficult to reverse,” argues Igor Istomin, who chairs the department of applied international studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).
At the same time, Russian pro-Kremlin analysts acknowledge that the version of the plan published by Axios and Honcharenko may be unacceptable for Kyiv.
“All the components of the agreement appear quite logical, but will Zelensky accept these terms? I believe such concessions would be suicidal for him politically,” said Oznobishchev of IMEMO.
Vadim Kozyulin, head researcher at the Russian Diplomatic Academy’s Center for Global Studies and International Relations, says:
From Russia’s perspective, the plan looks realistic, whereas for the EU and Ukraine it is completely unacceptable. A strong position for Moscow, a weak one for Kyiv – this broadly corresponds to the current situation: Russia is advancing, Ukraine is losing territory and is shaken by internal corruption scandals. But it will probably take further fighting to make this plan acceptable to both sides.
As for the possibility of compromise, I do not see it. All the key points – including Russia’s basic demands such as the status of the Russian language and the Orthodox Church, a ban on NATO membership, limits on the size of the armed forces and a prohibition on the placement of foreign troops in Ukraine – are unacceptable for Kyiv, to say nothing of territorial concessions that Ukraine, under its Constitution, cannot make. A breakthrough is unlikely in the near future.
Another theme that appears in several comments by Russian pro-government analysts is the potential unsustainability of the arrangement called for in the 28-point plan – due to the risk of revanchist sentiment in Ukraine.
Political scientist Valery Garbuzov, a so-called corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, cautions: “if Ukraine signs something under pressure, it will do so through gritted teeth. When states act in this manner, they suppress grievances; revanchist forces emerge seeking to reclaim what has been lost. So-called ‘Versailles syndrome’ develops, like in the Weimar Republic after World War I. And this is even worse, as such an atmosphere creates highly favorable conditions for revanchism. A solution of this kind creates new problems.”
“Overall, for Ukraine and for the West, this would be a temporary arrangement,” Oznobishchev concludes. “In 1918, there was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, from which Russia sought by every means to free itself. Similar sentiments will take hold in Ukraine, and the next president, I am certain, will have the ‘return of ancestral Ukrainian territories’ in his campaign. Thus, the situation may stabilize, but only briefly (historically speaking). In the future, this reconciliation (zamireniye) will come under constant pressure.”
“If Russia believes this plan will eliminate the root causes of the Ukraine conflict, then it will be [considered] acceptable. After that, it would be appropriate to move toward a regime of peaceful coexistence in Europe. We need to return to our foundations and build a European security system, and this is a major, separate issue that must be addressed,” said Sergei Oznobishchev, head of the military-political research and analysis at the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO).
“I believe this plan still fails to resolve the fundamental contradictions within the European security architecture. Tensions will remain, in part because the infrastructure of NATO and the EU is oriented toward deterring Russia, a course that is extremely difficult to reverse,” argues Igor Istomin, who chairs the department of applied international studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).
At the same time, Russian pro-Kremlin analysts acknowledge that the version of the plan published by Axios and Honcharenko may be unacceptable for Kyiv.
“All the components of the agreement appear quite logical, but will Zelensky accept these terms? I believe such concessions would be suicidal for him politically,” said Oznobishchev of IMEMO.
Vadim Kozyulin, head researcher at the Russian Diplomatic Academy’s Center for Global Studies and International Relations, says:
From Russia’s perspective, the plan looks realistic, whereas for the EU and Ukraine it is completely unacceptable. A strong position for Moscow, a weak one for Kyiv – this broadly corresponds to the current situation: Russia is advancing, Ukraine is losing territory and is shaken by internal corruption scandals. But it will probably take further fighting to make this plan acceptable to both sides.
As for the possibility of compromise, I do not see it. All the key points – including Russia’s basic demands such as the status of the Russian language and the Orthodox Church, a ban on NATO membership, limits on the size of the armed forces and a prohibition on the placement of foreign troops in Ukraine – are unacceptable for Kyiv, to say nothing of territorial concessions that Ukraine, under its Constitution, cannot make. A breakthrough is unlikely in the near future.
Another theme that appears in several comments by Russian pro-government analysts is the potential unsustainability of the arrangement called for in the 28-point plan – due to the risk of revanchist sentiment in Ukraine.
Political scientist Valery Garbuzov, a so-called corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, cautions: “if Ukraine signs something under pressure, it will do so through gritted teeth. When states act in this manner, they suppress grievances; revanchist forces emerge seeking to reclaim what has been lost. So-called ‘Versailles syndrome’ develops, like in the Weimar Republic after World War I. And this is even worse, as such an atmosphere creates highly favorable conditions for revanchism. A solution of this kind creates new problems.”
“Overall, for Ukraine and for the West, this would be a temporary arrangement,” Oznobishchev concludes. “In 1918, there was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, from which Russia sought by every means to free itself. Similar sentiments will take hold in Ukraine, and the next president, I am certain, will have the ‘return of ancestral Ukrainian territories’ in his campaign. Thus, the situation may stabilize, but only briefly (historically speaking). In the future, this reconciliation (zamireniye) will come under constant pressure.”
Share this article
Read More
