The 24-Point Ukrainian-European Peace Proposal
The ongoing diplomatic effort to resolve the war in Ukraine has produced multiple overlapping peace proposals, creating a complex documentary landscape that requires careful navigation. The 24-point proposal examined here appears to represent an independent European initiative, distinct from both the 28-point plan that emerged from U.S.-Russian discussions and the subsequent 28-point European counterproposal that modified American proposals. According to analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the differences between these plans likely reflect their distinct origins: the 24-point document was developed as a European initiative, while the 28-point European counterproposal was drafted specifically in response to the American plan.1
The documentary confusion surrounding these proposals reflects the rapid pace of diplomatic negotiations during late November 2025. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the situation, the peace framework represents a living, breathing document that changes daily with input from various parties.2 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated that the revised framework contained fewer than 28 points and incorporated what he termed correct elements, suggesting the proposals have been subject to continuous modification.3 The emergence of what is now reportedly a 19-point document drafted jointly by the United States and Ukraine further complicates the picture, though those terms have not been published at the time of this writing.
Full Text of the 24-Point Proposal
The following text represents the 24-point Ukrainian-European peace plan as published by The Telegraph and subsequently circulated among European diplomatic channels. This version appears to be more favorable to Ukrainian interests than the original 28-point American proposal, particularly regarding territorial issues, military limitations, and security guarantees.
Points 1-5: Cessation of Hostilities and Ceasefire Mechanisms
Point 1: End of the war and measures to ensure non-recurrence, establishing a permanent basis for long-term peace.
Point 2: Complete and unconditional ceasefire in the sky, on land and at sea.
Point 3: Both sides immediately enter into negotiations on the technical implementation of ceasefire monitoring with the participation of the EU and the US.
Point 4: International monitoring of the ceasefire under the leadership of the US using technological means.
Point 5: Establishment of a mechanism for submitting reports on ceasefire violations, an investigation mechanism.
The opening provisions establish the fundamental architecture for ending active hostilities. The emphasis on unconditional ceasefire represents a significant departure from proposals that would condition cessation of fighting on prior territorial concessions. The specification of monitoring through technological means, including satellites, drones, and remote surveillance capabilities, reflects practical recognition that deploying large numbers of ground-based peacekeepers may not be feasible given the scale of the conflict zone. The European plan envisions monitoring primarily under American leadership, which acknowledges the unique capabilities that U.S. intelligence assets provide while ensuring Washington remains invested in the agreement's success.
Points 6-8: Humanitarian Provisions
Point 6: Russia unconditionally returns all deported and illegally displaced Ukrainian children.
Point 7: Full exchange of prisoners of war on the principle of "all for all." Russia releases all civilian prisoners.
Point 8: After the ceasefire is established, humanitarian measures to alleviate the suffering of the population.
The humanitarian provisions address some of the most emotionally charged aspects of the conflict. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against President Putin specifically regarding the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, and estimates suggest thousands of minors have been removed from Ukrainian territory.4 The demand for unconditional return represents a non-negotiable element for Kyiv and reflects international law regarding the protection of children in armed conflict. The prisoner exchange provision follows standard wartime protocols, though implementation may prove challenging given that many prisoners have been held for extended periods and Russia has reportedly subjected detainees to conditions that may complicate repatriation.
Points 9-15: Sovereignty, Security Guarantees, and Alliance Relationships
Point 9: Ukraine's sovereignty is respected and confirmed. Ukraine is not being forced into neutrality.
Point 10: Ukraine receives reliable legally binding security guarantees, including guarantees under the principle of NATO Article 5 from the United States.
Point 11: No restrictions on the size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Ukrainian defense industry, including international cooperation.
Point 12: The guarantors will be a group of European countries and other willing parties outside Europe. Ukraine is free to decide on the presence, armament and operations of friendly forces invited by the Ukrainian government to its territory.
Point 13: Ukraine's membership in NATO depends on consensus within the alliance.
Point 14: Ukraine becomes a member of the EU.
Point 15: Ukraine retains its non-nuclear status under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This section contains perhaps the most significant divergences from the original American proposal and reflects European priorities regarding Ukraine's long-term security architecture. Point 9's explicit rejection of forced neutrality contrasts sharply with Russian demands that Ukraine constitutionally enshrine permanent non-alignment. Point 10's reference to Article 5-style guarantees addresses Ukraine's fundamental concern that any agreement must include binding commitments that would deter future Russian aggression. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which provided security assurances in exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament, proved ineffective when Russia invaded, and Kyiv has consistently demanded that any new arrangement include enforceable guarantees.
Point 11 represents one of the most consequential distinctions between the 24-point European proposal and the American plan. The original 28-point U.S. document proposed capping Ukraine's armed forces at 600,000 personnel, while the 28-point European counterproposal suggested 800,000 in peacetime. The 24-point proposal goes further by eliminating any numerical restriction entirely and explicitly protecting Ukraine's defense industrial base and international defense cooperation. This provision responds to concerns that force caps would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression and would require dismantling defense capabilities that took years to develop.
Point 12 provides the legal framework for what has been termed the Coalition of the Willing, the grouping of European nations prepared to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of security guarantees. French President Emmanuel Macron has indicated that European-led security guarantees would involve Turkish troops in addition to British and French soldiers.5 This provision notably preserves Ukrainian sovereignty regarding foreign troop presence, contrasting with American proposals that would prohibit NATO forces from stationing in Ukraine.
Point 13 represents a diplomatic compromise on NATO membership. Rather than permanently barring Ukraine from the alliance, as the American proposal would require through constitutional amendment and NATO statute modification, the European formulation acknowledges current political reality while preserving future options. This language recognizes that consensus for Ukrainian membership does not presently exist while avoiding the creation of permanent legal barriers.
Points 16-20: Territorial Provisions and Economic Arrangements
Point 16: Territorial issues will be discussed and resolved after an unconditional ceasefire.
Point 17: Negotiations on territories will be based on the current line of contact.
Point 18: Once the territorial issues are agreed upon, Russia and Ukraine undertake not to change them by force.
Point 19: Ukraine gains control over the Zaporizhzhia NPP and the Kakhovka HPP.
Point 20: Ukraine gains unimpeded passage over the Dnieper. Ukraine regains control over the Kinburn Spit.
The territorial provisions demonstrate the fundamental difference between the European approach and the American proposal. The original 28-point U.S. plan specified de facto recognition of Russian control over Crimea, Luhansk, and the entirety of Donetsk, including approximately 25 percent of the oblast still under Ukrainian control at the time of negotiations. It further required Ukrainian forces to withdraw from Donetsk territory they currently hold, establishing a demilitarized zone internationally recognized as belonging to Russia.
The 24-point European proposal takes a fundamentally different approach by sequencing territorial discussions after ceasefire establishment rather than predetermining outcomes. Point 17's specification that negotiations begin from the current line of contact means that neither side surrenders additional territory as a precondition for talks, and Ukraine is not required to withdraw from positions it currently holds. This approach mirrors the Istanbul Communiqué of April 2022, which postponed territorial issues rather than codifying Russian control.6
Points 19 and 20 address specific strategic assets. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest nuclear facility, currently sits in Russian-occupied territory but requires Ukrainian technical expertise for safe operation. The Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant was destroyed in June 2023, causing catastrophic flooding, and provisions regarding this facility presumably relate to reconstruction and operational control. The Kinburn Spit controls access to the Dnieper-Bug estuary and has strategic significance for both maritime commerce and military positioning.
Points 21-24: Economic Provisions and Broader Security Architecture
Point 21: Ukraine and partners implement economic cooperation without restrictions.
Point 22: Ukraine will be fully restored, it will be paid financial compensation, Russian assets will remain frozen until the compensation is paid.
Point 23: Sanctions imposed on Russia will be gradually lifted as a stable peace is established, but will be reinstated in the event of a violation of the peace treaty.
Point 24: Separate negotiations on the European security architecture will begin, including all OSCE countries.
The economic provisions address post-war reconstruction and the disposition of frozen Russian assets. Approximately $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets have been frozen by Western nations since February 2022, with the majority held in European jurisdictions.7 The original American proposal controversially suggested that the United States would control these assets and receive 50 percent of profits from their use in Ukrainian reconstruction. The European formulation in Point 22 eliminates this arrangement, instead keeping assets frozen as collateral until Russia provides compensation for war damage.
Point 23 establishes sanctions as an enforcement mechanism, creating consequences for treaty violations that go beyond rhetorical condemnation. The specification that sanctions would be reinstated if Russia violates the agreement addresses concerns that Moscow might pocket territorial gains and then resume aggression after Western economic pressure has been relieved. This snapback provision represents a key European contribution to the negotiating framework.
Point 24 acknowledges that the Ukraine conflict reflects broader failures in European security architecture that have accumulated since the end of the Cold War. Reference to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe signals intent to address Russian concerns about NATO expansion and Western security policies within a multilateral framework, while avoiding bilateral U.S.-Russia arrangements that might exclude European voices.
Comparative Assessment and Diplomatic Reception
Russian officials have rejected the European proposals. Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov characterized the European plan as entirely unconstructive and unsuitable for Russia, according to state media.8 This response was predictable given that the 24-point proposal does not grant Russia the territorial recognition it seeks, does not limit Ukrainian military capabilities, and does not permanently bar Ukraine from Western alliance structures. Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained that the original American proposal could form the basis for a final peace settlement, suggesting Moscow prefers negotiating with Washington on terms more favorable to Russian interests.
European leaders have expressed cautious optimism while acknowledging substantial work remains. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that progress in Geneva established a solid basis for moving forward, while Finnish President Alexander Stubb noted that negotiations were a step forward but major issues remain unresolved.9 The Coalition of the Willing, comprising approximately 30 nations supporting Ukraine, has been working to coordinate positions and present unified European input into the negotiating process.
The practical viability of any agreement ultimately depends on Russian willingness to accept terms that fall short of its maximalist demands. As one analyst noted, Russia has been making slow but concerted territorial gains and may calculate that continued military pressure will yield better terms than negotiation.10 The 24-point European proposal establishes positions that protect core Ukrainian interests while offering Russia a pathway out of international isolation. Whether Moscow will accept such a framework remains the central question for any peace process.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
