In late October, European media reported on a leaked 12-point “peace plan” said to be under discussion between EU states and Ukraine. Its authenticity remains unconfirmed, but the draft suggests an effort to bring Vladimir Putin into negotiations on terms partly aligned with Moscow’s stated demands.
The leak coincided with the Oct. 30 meeting between US President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping, drawing immediate attention in Kyiv and abroad. Analysts questioned whether the initiative reflects European pragmatism or a risky compromise that could undermine Ukraine’s position.
According to Bloomberg and Radio Liberty, the draft – tentatively titled “Elements of Peace in Ukraine” – envisions a two-stage process: first, a ceasefire and freeze of the front line under US oversight; second, negotiations on security guarantees, reconstruction, and the administration of occupied territories.
While no EU country has officially endorsed the plan, its emergence has already sparked debate in Ukraine about how far such proposals serve the country’s interests.
In an interview with Kyiv Post, Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy and Interparliamentary Cooperation and former vice president (2020-2022) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, discussed whether the European plan could form the basis for a real peace agreement – and what risks it might pose.
The 12 points of the “peace plan” were first reported by Bloomberg. After that, the document was made public by Radio Liberty journalist Rikard Jozwiak, citing sources in the European Union’s governing structures. Do you think this document could be officially released in the near future?
We are not sure that the document that appeared online is authentic. It was leaked to the press, but there is currently no official confirmation of its authenticity.
Looking at the text published in the media – and we are talking about reliable media – the question arises: why did this leak happen?
The hidden political goal could have been a kind of testing the waters – an attempt to find out how Russia and Ukraine would react to it. After all, we are currently seeing attempts to bring this plan into the public sphere.
I doubt that it will be officially presented at the EU level. It is more of a political project designed to gauge the reaction of the parties.
How do you assess these 12 points of the draft?
If we analyze the text, we can see two main intentions of its authors.
The first goal is to achieve a ceasefire and then move on to negotiations. In this sense, the document can be seen as a development of Donald Trump’s general proposal. This is a positive scenario that envisages the cessation of hostilities and the start of dialogue.
The second goal is to try to take into account the wishes of Russia, but in such a way that it does not lead to a gross violation of international law.
Are you referring to the point about prohibiting the parties from attacking each other?
Yes, the published list of points in the peace plan contains a provision on a non-aggression pact. But given our experience with international memoranda and the Minsk agreements, it would be naive to expect that a new peace agreement will be able to stop Russia. Russia does not respect any international obligations.
As far as I understand, the authors of the clause prohibiting one country from attacking another after the front line has been frozen intended to limit Ukraine’s ability to liberate territories temporarily occupied by Russia by military means.
This clause of the plan effectively forces us to give up on regaining our territories by force of arms.
Even if such a peace agreement were to be concluded, it would raise serious doubts and contradict international law. In accordance with the principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the principle of respect for sovereignty, our state retains the right to return its territories by any means. This is also consistent with the right to self-defense provided for in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Therefore, certain points of this plan raise serious questions.
Are you referring to the point about “cultural dialogue” to “deepen mutual understanding” regarding language and religion?
The ninth point can be seen as an attempt to take into account Russia’s demands and restore the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which is in fact an instrument of propaganda and Russian sabotage. This is a rather dangerous internal element of Russia’s influence on Ukraine.
So, part of the peace plan appears written with Russia’s interests in mind?
Yes, of course. But the proposal of this plan itself, from a political point of view, is not entirely negative.
First, according to its authors, the first step in the settlement should still be a ceasefire.
Second, this plan could help Europe reveal Vladimir Putin’s true intentions, which he does not voice publicly. The chances that he will support the plan are very slim.
And here it is interesting to see Putin’s reaction.
If European partners offer a compromise version of a peace plan that takes into account the Kremlin’s official demands, the Russian side’s refusal will only demonstrate Vladimir Putin’s true intentions. His ultimate goal is not to fulfill the declared demands, but to destroy Ukraine as a state.
Putin does not really want any compromise. In this context, the European plan may be useful.
On Oct. 31, the head of the Office of the President, Andriy Yermak, said that US participation is essential in preparing a peace plan.
Earlier, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed developing a peace plan for Ukraine based on Trump’s 20-point proposal for Gaza.
How active a role do you think the United States is playing? Can we assume these 12 points were agreed with Washington?
Absolutely. The implementation of the “European” peace plan for Ukraine is impossible without Donald Trump’s consent.
This document is indeed adapted to the US president’s vision. It provides for the creation of a body under Trump’s auspices to monitor compliance with the ceasefire. Presumably, the very idea of creating such a body was agreed with the American side.
However, as the American leader likes to emphasize, it takes two to tango. There are serious doubts that we will see Vladimir Putin’s consent. Both British and American intelligence report that he does not plan to stop the fighting. Putin is not interested in peace or a ceasefire that could provide Ukraine with real security guarantees.
According to European media, the draft has not yet been approved or discussed at the highest level. Which countries might support it if officially announced?
In essence, this document is a political proposal from the EU and Ukraine, addressed primarily to three parties: the United States, possibly China, and the Russian Federation.
The likelihood of support from Washington is quite high, while the same cannot be said for China and Russia.
Russia will most likely refuse again, insisting that its demands must be met before a ceasefire can be implemented. But this would effectively mean Ukraine’s surrender.
Interestingly, the European peace plan appeared online on the very day of the talks between US President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.
In 2022, Ukraine was already discussing China’s 12-point peace plan. There is now active debate about the possibility that China could push Russia to resolve the conflict. In your opinion, why not conclude a full-fledged peace agreement?
First, the 2022 Chinese peace plan had no real substance. It was more of a propaganda stunt designed to show that China supposedly supports peace.
The document did not contain any implementation mechanisms or specific answers to the key question: how to get Vladimir Putin to sit down at the negotiating table and start a real dialogue.
Today, it is clear that China will continue to adhere to peaceful rhetoric only in words. In reality, the PRC will continue to support Russia and its military machine.
It is beneficial for Xi Jinping that Russia is dependent on China. If he starts to put pressure on Vladimir Putin, there is a risk of losing him as a strategic partner.
It is important to realize that the current war in Ukraine generally suits China. If peace is achieved, Russia will no longer be so dependent on Beijing – and this is not in Xi’s interests.
China will most likely simply ignore the European peace plan. Beijing will obviously consult with Vladimir Putin and will likely refer to its own peace plan.
In addition, China may declare that any peace initiative must take into account Russia’s security interests. In this way, Beijing will effectively be able to avoid directly supporting the European project.
Can the UN Security Council put the peace plan developed by the EU together with the United States and Ukraine to a vote?
Theoretically, the UN Security Council could consider such a document. Here, an analogy can be drawn with the Minsk agreements: at that time, a Security Council resolution was also adopted, in which they were mentioned.
If we hypothetically assume that Russia agrees to participate in this process, a similar approach could be applied – to adopt a resolution in which the UN Security Council would respond positively to the plan but would not give it binding legal force.
In my opinion, if this plan has any future at all, it will still remain a political document.
The authors of the document may propose that the UN Security Council adopt a resolution that includes selected points from this “peace plan” of the EU, the US, and Ukraine to end the war in Ukraine.
However, given the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council, the implementation of such an initiative is impossible without the consent of Russia and China. And we are unlikely to see that happen.
The European peace plan – what is it?
Bloomberg first reported that Europe and Ukraine were preparing the peace plan to end the war. The draft was later shared with journalists from the European service of Radio Liberty and, according to media sources, is tentatively titled Elements of Peace in Ukraine. It outlines a two-stage process comprising 12 points.
Stage I: Ceasefire and truce
- Start of the truce. The ceasefire “will begin 24 hours after the parties agree to this plan.”
- Freezing of the front line. The front line “will be fixed at the positions that the parties occupied at the time of the ceasefire.”
- Monitoring. Compliance with the ceasefire “will be monitored under US leadership using satellites, drones, and other technological means.”
- Non-aggression regime. During the truce, Ukraine and Russia will refrain from attacks and attempts to change the front line.
- Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. It is proposed that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant be transferred to the control of an unnamed third party and that negotiations begin on its return to Ukrainian control.
- Confidence-building and sanctions. The plan calls for “confidence-building measures,” including “the lifting of certain symbolic sanctions” against Russia after the ceasefire has lasted for an agreed period.
- Return of the Russian Federation. Russia is to be readmitted to international organizations from which it was excluded.
- Peace Council chaired by Trump. During the ceasefire, a “Peace Council” chaired by Donald Trump should be established to oversee the implementation of the final peace plan.
Phase II: Peace talks and reconstruction
- Final line of contact. During the peace talks, the parties should discuss the final line of contact, which will remain in effect until an agreement is reached on the permanent administration of the occupied territories. The plan also provides for the creation of security zones along this line, where any military activity will be prohibited. Monitoring in these zones will be carried out by an international commission.
- Security guarantees. Security guarantees are stipulated, but without specifics.
- Cultural dialogue. The plan provides for the launch of a high-level dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow with the aim of “deepening mutual understanding and respect for linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity.”
- Financial mechanisms. The plan provides for the creation of a Fund for the Reconstruction of Ukraine, which could be financed by frozen Russian assets. As the agreements are implemented, sanctions against Russia are to be gradually eased. Ukraine and Russia are to begin negotiations on compensation for military damage using frozen assets in the West. A mechanism is also provided whereby, in the event of a renewed attack on Ukraine, all sanctions and isolation measures will be automatically reinstated.