Policy Assessment – Progress Center for Policies
Introduction:
In the past hours, Ukraine has signaled optimism about ending the war, coinciding with promising statements by the U.S. President. Reports indicate that amendments have been made to the American draft framework, which is expected to be discussed by Russian and Ukrainian delegations. Developments unfold amid ambiguity in Moscow that could be
interpreted as constructive.
Key Facts:
On 25 November 2025, the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Ukraine had accepted the “core essence” of the updated U.S. framework and that what remained were “just minor details.” On the same day, Zelensky said in a televised address that he expected to visit Washington before the end of the month to finalize the details with Trump personally. On 25 November 2025, the White House announced it would send Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow next week for a direct meeting with President Vladimir Putin. On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated: “We appreciate the American effort, but we expect the final version to match the principles we agreed upon with President Trump last August.”
On 26 November 2025, President Trump said: “Only a few sensitive but solvable points remain; the agreement is very close.” Reports indicate that Ukrainian and Russian delegations are heading to Abu Dhabi to discuss amendments to the previous draft.
According to published information, the revised provisions include:
-Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire with a limited, negotiated withdrawal to defined lines.
-Full affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
-Reliable, binding security guarantees for Ukraine from the U.S. and Europe, with the possibility of a permanent European deterrence force in the future.
-Temporary freezing of the territorial situation along current lines of contact, with final discussion of Crimea, Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia postponed.
-Practical abandonment of Ukraine’s NATO membership ambitions (constitutionally or via binding agreement) in exchange for a commitment that NATO will not expand eastward.
-A cap on the size of the Ukrainian army (currently proposed at around 600,000 troops, subject to adjustment).
-A major reconstruction package worth hundreds of billions of dollars, financed by frozen Russian assets plus direct American and European contributions.
-Gradual, conditional lifting of Western sanctions on Russia in exchange for full compliance.
-Long-term economic agreements (Black Sea grain corridor, gas supplies, rare minerals).
-Creation of an international monitoring mechanism and a permanent Peace Council.
Reports caution that these amendments remain imprecise and that key issues—territorial questions, army size, detailed security guarantees, NATO membership—have been deferred to a trilateral or quadrilateral presidential-level meeting.
On 25 November 2025, Zelensky said the “revised version is much closer to our position, and we are ready to move forward.” However, Ukrainian sources emphasize the need for European participation in security guarantees and reject any permanent concession of territory without strong, binding compensation. On 26 November 2025, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated: “There can be no peace without Ukraine’s full consent and Europe’s participation.” On the same day, French President Emmanuel Macron said: “This is a decisive moment; it must be seized for a just and lasting peace.”
On 26 November 2025, Yury Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy advisor, disclosed that Russia had received the latest version of the U.S. peace plan and that some clauses required serious analysis. He added that the U.S. envoy had held a meeting in Abu Dhabi with Ukrainian representatives and—unexpectedly—a Russian representative. He noted that Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials discussed sensitive issues, including prisoners.
Reports say Brussels, London, Berlin, and Paris confirmed continued military aid to Ukraine until the final signing, and insist on strong security guarantees including a permanent European deterrence force. Ukrainian monitoring sources say Ukraine succeeded in amending clauses that infringed on its sovereignty. They stressed that Zelensky cannot accept anything that undermines sovereignty or unity or negates accountability for Russia—and that any acceptance of sovereignty compromises could trigger domestic rejection or even civil conflict.
Diplomatic sources believe Ukraine is employing a cooperative diplomatic maneuver with Trump, aiming to avoid being framed as the side that rejects or blocks his plan. These sources add that this maneuver—combined with U.S. domestic political calculations and European positions—has pushed Trump to soften his stance, engage more positively with Kyiv’s concerns, and talk about a “developable” plan.
According to American sources, the new amendments reduce the plan’s articles from 28 to 19, including:
-No interference with the size of the Ukrainian army or its freedom to arm itself
-No amnesty for war crimes
-Removal of the prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO
-Not allowing Ukraine to retake its territories by military force
Although Russia has not officially responded to Trump’s plan or its amendments, Russian research groups have spoken of the economic incentives anticipated by business communities in both Russia and the U.S. from a war-ending agreement. While these groups did not reveal Moscow’s official intentions, they presented arguments suggesting Russia might accept some solution that ends the war.
Diplomats believe public sentiment in Ukraine has become increasingly open to the idea of halting the war and leaving Russian-occupied territories under de facto Russian control—without recognizing Russian sovereignty over them as the initial draft had required. For Washington, this indicates Kyiv has accepted the principle of relinquishing these areas (at least temporarily).
They argue that future changes in the international system may create power balances that enable Kyiv to regain its territories, similar to German reunification after shifts in global dynamics. Russian research entities assert that ideological motivations rooted in the Soviet and imperial eras shape Putin’s approach toward what he sees as Russia’s historical domain—and that Russia’s presence in eastern Ukraine is viewed as an achievement within that worldview.
These sources add that Russia has positioned itself in a new place within the international landscape during the war, bolstered by security, military, and economic partnerships worldwide—and that ending the war supports this evolving reality.
Conclusion:
Statements by the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents strongly suggest a real possibility of reaching an agreement to end the war in Ukraine. Zelensky’s acceptance of the plan’s “core” indicates Ukraine has moved past earlier objections that impeded Washington’s efforts. Information suggests Washington has engaged constructively with Ukrainian amendments that safeguard sovereignty, military strength, and freedom to join international blocs, and avoid recognizing Russian gains. Despite ambiguities in the proposed amendments, Ukraine seeks robust European participation in security guarantees. European positions remain firm: no agreement without Kyiv and without Europe at the table. Despite Russia’s silence, U.S. signals and the decision to send a special envoy to meet Putin suggest a potential Russian openness to the updated proposal. Ukraine appears willing to tolerate Russian occupation in the east without recognizing it, while Russia views maintaining its presence there as a strategic achievement.
