The so-called “peace plan,” which is meant to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine, has been published in the media. Spokespersons for the U.S. administration have confirmed that the efforts to draft such a document are indeed taking place.

Reports suggest that other versions of this plan might exist within the different corridors of power. Even so, it is likely that the 28-point document circulated by the media captures all the principal elements of the so-called “peace plan,” which in fact is a plan for a crawling capitulation of Ukraine.

And here is the reasoning behind this conclusion. Let us break this plan down point by point.

1. “Confirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty” is an empty declaration.

Ukraine’s sovereignty was proclaimed by the Act of Independence in 1991, validated by the referendum of the same year, embedded in the Constitution, recognized globally, and reinforced through international agreements and United Nations membership.

We are a sovereign state. We do not need any “confirmation” from the aggressor. Therefore, this point has no legal or political significance whatsoever.

2. “A non-invasion agreement” with Russia. We’ve already had the Budapest Memorandum, the Friendship Treaty with Russia, the Minsk accords, and countless pledges of “respect for borders”. All of them ultimately led to the full-scale invasion.

No agreement with the Kremlin ever holds. Moscow will violate any new “piece of paper” whenever it suits its interests.

3-4. A “non-aggression” declaration and the NATO-Russia dialog. There is only one condition which can stop Russia from attacking a country: if it is a NATO member or has enough military strength to deter the invasion.

So, the matter of NATO expansion is up to the Allies to decide, not the Kremlin.

5. “Security guarantees” that guarantee nothing. This is a key point, but it is lacking substance.

In the world we live in, there are only two models for such guarantees: a membership in NATO or explicit, legally binding treaties on collective defense with shared military structures, deployment of foreign forces, and full military interoperability. Yet, all of these are rendered impossible by further points of the plan.

To add insult to injury, the logic of the plan is absurd: if Russia attacks - Ukraine “gets help”, but the moment it strikes back - all the guarantees disappear.

6. Limiting the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 600,000 is a recipe for defeat.

Ukraine is at war with a country of 140 million people and an army that the Kremlin can expand without any limits. Capping our forces is essentially a strategic demilitarization of Ukraine.

A true balance is possible only if Russia cuts its deployments in the European part of its territory, relocates troops to the east, and curbs its short- and medium-range missiles. Yet, the proposed plan contains none of these measures.

7. Prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO amounts to strategic surrender. Russia knows this is impossible. The Allies lack consensus to cancel their decision on Ukraine’s membership. In the meantime, the Ukrainian parliament cannot vote for such a ban without causing total political destabilization.

Furthermore, Russia is fully aware that the Alliance has never posed any threat to it.

The purpose of this point is about security - it is about exerting control over the West.

If the present U.S. administration is not prepared to accept Ukraine into NATO - a stance it has voiced repeatedly - this is a matter of their political judgment. It does not, however, reflect the decision of the entire Alliance, which was endorsed in 2008 and confirmed over the next two decades, including through the decade of war.

8-9. Prohibiting Western military presence is tantamount to disarming Ukraine. The country is essentially forbidden from deploying foreign troops or hosting Western aviation.

This renders any “security guarantees” meaningless. Any placement of military hardware would be regarded by the Kremlin as a “violation of the accord”.

10. U.S. guarantees without any guarantees for Ukraine. The whole burden of responsibility is placed entirely on Ukraine.

This is an ideal setup for Russian provocations. It also features an obscure notion of “compensation to the U.S.”, which raises the question: who will pay them and how?"

11. The EU membership is an attractive formula without real substance behind it. As long as Russia holds veto over Ukrainian geopolitics, this is not a component of peace, but a means of pressure.

We remember all too well that Russia claimed it was “not opposed” to our European integration, yet together with Yanukovych it was killing Ukrainians on the Maidan — precisely because we chose Europe.

12. A “Marshall Plan” is a good idea, but it must come only after a just peace. Rebuilding Ukraine indeed requires sustained joint efforts by Ukraine, the U.S., the EU and the G7. Yet it may happen only after peace on fair terms is achieved, not as a substitute for it.

13. Russia is offered a gradual lifting of sanctions, a return to the G8, and full access to technologies and capital.

This is nothing short of rehabilitation of the aggressor without any punishment whatsoever.

Hitler had no idea such a thing was possible. Russia is being restored to its “great power” standing for relentlessly killing Ukrainians for over a decade.

14. Ukraine has lost over $500 billion because of the Russian aggression - not just a hundred or two hundred. And this figure is far from final and will be significantly higher.

Yet, the proposal effectively allows Russia to profit from its aggression. Don’t even get me started on the moral aspect of this. Russian assets must become part of the “Marshall Plan”.

15. Working groups. It’s up to the Americans to decide if they want to establish joint groups with the aggressor or not. From my own experience, I can say this: if you want to bury an issue in delays, set up working groups with the Russians.

16. Russia will adopt a “non-aggression policy” in its legislation. It’s a remarkable clause. It’s like a freed mass murderer writing a note in a police log that he promises never to kill again. Moscow truly takes everyone for fools.

17. The point regarding nuclear non-proliferation is valid. Ideally, not only should the relevant treaties be extended, but they should also be legally supplemented with a ban to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country, and other nuclear countries should be party to the agreement.

This topic is a separate negotiation track for Ukraine’s security guarantees. But Russia is cynically using it as bait for the U.S.

18. Ukraine has long been a non-nuclear state and follows the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The framework established by the Treaty is being destroyed by one country and one country alone - Russia.

19. Placing the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant under shared management is basically a formal recognition of the occupation.

20. The provisions on education, minority rights, and “media freedom” in Ukraine and Russia are hardly worth discussing. Russia destroys cultures and languages, while Ukraine protects the rights of all minorities. The misrepresentation of facts is obvious.

Moscow does not care about well-being of ethnic minorities. What it seeks is Russification. It wants to enforce new regulations to erase Ukrainian identity, same as it tried doing in the past with the Valuev Decree.

When it comes to denazification, that’s spot on. The only problem is that it should be done in the Kremlin and throughout Russia.

Same as Germany was after the World War II, Russia today must be held accountable for its aggression, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

21. The most dangerous part is an attempt to legitimize Russia’s occupation. The plan demands that Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk be recognized as “Russian”, and that Russia be given portions of the territory that Ukraine presently holds.

A ceasefire along the contact line is the right thing to do. But formal recognition of the Russian occupation is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Had the U.S. acted this way toward the Baltic states and Germany, the Kremlin would now control all of Europe.

22-23. Another batch of declarations of good intent. Russia is not obstructing our shipping because the Black Sea Fleet is rotting away underwater. That says it all.

24. The humanitarian section is important, though not new. Ukraine has been working for many years to bring back the prisoners.

All that matters is that Russia should agree to hand our people over. The rest is just empty words.

25. Ukraine will hold elections when it is safe to do so, when they can meet OSCE standards, and when there is no threat of Russian interference.

26. “Amnesty for all” is both a legal and moral crime. Should we forgive genocide? Forgive Bucha, Izyum, Mariupol, the deportation of children, the filtration camps?

Had Hitler known that this was possible, he would never have killed himself, and Churchill and Roosevelt would have been tried at Nuremberg.

This clause fully absolves Russia of its war crimes and crimes against humanity. Worse still, it's an open invitation for new atrocities. At that point, we may as well dissolve the UN and discard the international law as useless.

This is an insult to the dead and their families, to those who were held captive, to the wounded and injured, to memory and human dignity - and to the law itself. It also fully relieves Russia of any financial accountability to our citizens and businesses.

27. We are open to a Peace Council headed by President Donald Trump. But we will never concede to a “Council of Capitulation” on Putin’s terms.

28. A complete and unconditional ceasefire along the line of contact. This is the proper starting point.

We will not accept a new “Munich agreement”. Real peace requires stopping the aggressor by force.

A new “Munich agreement” would pave the way for a new major world war. Genuine peace in Ukraine will ensure global security.

We are fighting for that security. I am urging the world leaders to help us win and, in doing so, safeguard themselves.

The column is published on the website "European Pravda"