The 19-Point Peace Plan: Can Ukraine Avoid Another Minsk or Budapest?

Introduction:

For almost four years, the Russian offensive on Ukraine has dragged on, with a somewhat predictable rhythm. Russia pushes forward, while Ukraine counter-attacks when possible. Most western debates regarding the war have been about who, where and when should resources be sent to support Ukraine. However, talks for a long-lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia have ramped up significantly since mid-November. On the 19^th of November, a US drafted 28-point peace plan for Ukraine was first reported. Controversially, the plan was drafted with input from Russia, but Ukraine was largely excluded from providing any meaningful contribution. The following day, The White House confirmed its existence and that it was presented to Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky. 

Europe was quick to push back on the proposal, expressing concerns, notably the concessions Ukraine will have to make if both Kyiv and Moscow agree to the plan. As a result, by the 22^nd – 23^rd November, EU leaders officially rejected the original U.S. version and began drafting a counterproposal. Between the 23^rd and 24^th November, U.S. and Ukrainian officials symbolically met in Geneva. Many controversial demands were removed from the plan, reducing it from 28 points to 19 points, making it "less favourable for Russia". Later in the month, Russia dismissed Europe’s counter proposal, while Europe, with geostrategy and the defence of the continent in mind, reaffirmed it would not support any peace plan that forced Ukraine to concede territory. Then, on the 30^th November, Ukrainian delegates held talks with a U.S. team including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy. Ukrainian negotiation leader Rustem Umerov said that the meeting was "difficult but productive", highlighting that progress was being made to establish lasting peace. Rubio left the negotiations with the same sentiment, stating  “much work remains, but today was again a very productive and useful session". 

The Peace Plan:

After the adjustments in Geneva, the now 19-point peace plan provides a framework for the purpose of facilitating dialogue between the two war torn states, while at the same time, addressing some of the main concerns held by Kyiv and Europe. The main point of the plan includes providing security guarantees for Ukraine. Such a guarantee would be similar to NATO’s Article 5, a legally binding collective security agreement committing the U.S. and other allies to defend Ukraine from future possible attacks by Russia. 

The revised plan also removed several key points from the original draft, most notably, the initial requirement for Ukraine to cede territory as a condition for peace, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, withdrawing its troops from these regions. Reportedly, these areas would have been declared as demilitarized buffer zones but internationally recognized as part of Russia. The frontlines in other oblasts including Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be ‘frozen’, thus forcing Ukraine to accept the new reality that has emerged since the invasion. However, Zelensky has repeatedly stated he would not accept territorial concessions as part of a peace agreement, and thus, it was subsequently removed in the revised plan. Another major point that was not accepted in the 19-point peace plan was the strict cap on the Ukrainian Armed forces, which was initially limited to 600,000 active troops during peacetime. Following the revision in Geneva, it has been reported that Ukrainian officials have agreed to an 800,000 active troop limit, bringing it much closer to its current wartime strength of roughly 900,000 members. Regardless of whether the cap will be 600,000 or 800,000, Ukraine will continue to have the second largest army in Europe, with Russia having the largest.  

It must be noted, however, that the 19-point peace plan has not been formally released yet, and much of the available information has come from leaks and speculation by analysts. Thus, nothing has been set in stone yet, and all parties have yet to agree to it.  Furthermore, there are many more issues in the plan to be ironed out, including finalizing precise borders, determining Ukraine’s future eligibility to NATO, and specific arrangements for long term security coordination. Simply put, the 19-point peace plan, for now, is a framework for negotiation between the warring parties, rather than a legally binding treaty. 

Recent Developments:

On the 2^nd of December, the U.S. built upon this momentum, with Witkoff and Kushner travelling to Moscow to discuss the revised 19-point peace plan with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The U.S. envoys left the negotiations feeling cautiously optimistic, stating that the dialogue was ‘constructive’. However, this newfound optimism contrasted sharply with the chilling remark made by Putin prior to the meeting, saying "we are not planning to go to war with Europe, but if Europe wants to and starts, we are ready right now". Furthermore, Putin outlined that the revisions made by Europe to the peace plan were unacceptable, particularly the lack of any territorial concessions to Russia and the collective security arrangements between Ukraine and the U.S.-Europe coalition. So far, Russia has not agreed to the plan, but the recent talks in Moscow suggest that the peace process may be entering a new phase, with a ceasefire looking more likely with each passing day.

Historical context and lessons learned:

Historically speaking, Ukraine hasn’t had entirely positive experiences when it comes to peace agreements with its domineering neighbour, which may help explain their cautious approach in recent weeks. The Minsk agreements (2014–2015) were signed with the objective of stopping conflict in the Donbas region during the first phase of the Russo-Ukraine war. Unfortunately, this was not to be, and the hostilities continued, exposing Ukraine to further Russian attacks. Going further back in time, to the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, the publishing of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 resulted in Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons, in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., the U.K., and Russia. However, these were not legally binding, and the Memorandum was ultimately not upheld, with no practical protection provided to Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Looking back, both the Minsk and Budapest Agreements failed due to a lack of enforcement. These historical documents may haunt Kyiv today and therefore explain their insistence that any agreed peace plan between Russia and Ukraine must have legally binding security guarantees that promise to be enforced, as well as assurances that Ukraine will not have to concede territory to their invaders. In their minds, the failures of Minsk and Budapest must not be repeated. 

Conclusion: 

All things considered, the 19-point peace plan is a step in the right direction, bringing the possibility of an end to the conflict somewhat closer. On the other hand, there is still work to be done, and it will be a long road to peace. U.S.-Ukraine and U.S.-Russia negotiations provide a spark of hope, but the possibility of a ceasefire ultimately depends upon all parties agreeing to the main issues regarding security guarantees and borders. As it stands, the road to peace is uncertain. What is not uncertain, however, is that the stakes for European security, and indeed, the wider international community, remain high.