On April 22nd, diplomacy tried to reshape the war in Ukraine again. With The Telegraph breaking news of a new 7-point peace plan, the world took a sharp breath. But if this latest document was intended to be a roadmap to peace, then it was drawn with the Kremlin’s compass and colored heavily in Moscow’s red. The United States, acting as lead architect of this proposed deal, presented terms that stunned Kyiv. Terms that many Ukrainians see not as peace—but as slow-motion defeat.
So, what’s actually in the deal? Why did the Ukrainian leadership reject it? And why might this entire initiative, despite being draped in the language of peace, actually be a strategic recalibration that benefits the very aggressor it seeks to contain?
Let’s peel this apart—point by point, reaction by reaction, and strategy by strategy.
The 7 Points: What the Americans Proposed
-
Territorial Concessions
Ukrainians were expected to accept, at least de facto, the loss of nearly all the territories seized by Russia—Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kherson oblasts. These aren’t marginal gains for Russia; they’re the entire active war front. In terms of Crimea, Washington’s plan called for Ukraine to accept its annexation at the de jure level, putting an official legal seal on the 2014 invasion. -
NATO Membership? Off the Table
Russia would be given ironclad guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO. This alone echoes the Kremlin’s top strategic demand since the early 2000s—and one of the principal reasons it launched the full-scale invasion. -
Sanctions Lifted
All sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 would be rolled back. From energy sector restrictions to banking blocks, the economic noose the West tied around the Kremlin would be loosened, almost entirely. -
U.S.–Russia Economic Cooperation
An even bolder stroke: Washington would re-establish economic partnerships with Moscow, particularly in energy and industrial sectors—ironically, the same arenas funding the Russian war machine. -
Security Guarantees (Without the U.S.)
Ukraine would receive so-called “robust” security guarantees. But these would come from select European nations and unnamed “willing parties.” The U.S., the architect of the plan, would not be one of them. -
Territorial “Returns”
Ukraine would regain small pockets of land in Kharkiv and Kherson regions. The kind of symbolic “wins” intended to paper over vast territorial losses. -
Zaporizhzhia Compromise & Navigation Rights
Control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would remain technically Ukrainian but be operated by Americans, with energy flowing to both Ukraine and occupied Russian areas. Ukraine would also be guaranteed navigation rights on the Dnipro River.
So What Does Ukraine Actually Get?
-
“Robust” but toothless security guarantees
-
Minor territorial returns
-
Compensation and reconstruction aid (from whom, exactly, is unclear)
-
Recognition of Zaporizhzhia as Ukrainian—but operational control goes to the Americans
-
The Resource Agreement, finalized on April 30th, which now looks better on paper than originally feared
It’s a package light on sovereignty and heavy on appeasement.
Zelensky Responds: “This Is Against Our Constitution”
The Ukrainian response was swift and sharp. President Zelensky didn’t just push back—he refused to play the game. “Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea,” he said bluntly. “There is nothing to talk about here.” He also dismissed the Zaporizhzhia power plant proposal, pointing out that it cannot run without Ukrainian technicians.
Just as critical: he confirmed that Ukraine had never officially received a direct proposal to concede any territory, despite the language in Washington’s draft plan.
This public defiance did not go unnoticed.
American Reaction: Fractures in the Strategy
In response to Zelensky’s outright refusal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio abruptly canceled a planned visit to London, where progress on the peace plan was meant to be discussed. Meanwhile, Donald Trump took to Truth Social to unleash a tirade.
Trump’s message was characteristically blunt:
“Zelensky could take these terms and keep what he has, or fight for another three years and end up with nothing.”
He accused Ukraine of being “men without cards to play” and argued that prolonging the war was pointless. This framing, of course, conveniently ignores that Ukraine is the victim of unprovoked aggression, not the instigator of conflict.
For Trump, peace is less about justice or sovereignty—and more about cutting losses and moving on.
The Russian Response: A Smiling Kremlin
Russia, by contrast, greeted the plan with clear satisfaction. Putin’s adviser, Yuri Ushakov, after meeting with Trump envoy Steve Witkov in Moscow, noted that the conversation had brought U.S. and Russian positions “closer together.” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later clarified what Russia still wanted:
-
Legal recognition of all occupied regions as Russian territory
-
Complete demilitarization and “denazification” of Ukraine
-
Lifting of sanctions and cancellation of international arrest warrants
-
The return of frozen Russian assets in the West
These are not bargaining points. They are ultimatums.
Why the Kremlin Might Play Along (For Now)
From Moscow’s perspective, this peace plan might be a temporary win. Accepting it allows the Kremlin to:
-
Lock in its territorial gains
-
Ease economic pressure
-
Shift the geopolitical baseline even further in its favor
If this becomes the new “starting point” for future talks, then any further demands—like control over Odesa, or the neutralization of Ukraine’s military—will be framed not as aggression but as “completing unfinished business.”
Russia doesn’t need to win everything now. It just needs the world to accept something. Then, when the conditions are right, it will come for the rest.
Ukraine’s Calculation: Better to Fight Than Fold
To Zelensky and his national security team, this proposal looks less like peace and more like forced surrender. Deputy chairman Yehor Chernev was explicit:
“We will not sign an act of capitulation.”
Ukraine believes that legitimizing Russia’s illegal gains today will only encourage more aggression tomorrow. Signing such a deal would erase not only territorial integrity but a decade of national struggle since the Euromaidan revolution.
From Kyiv’s perspective, if this is the deal, then there is no deal.
Strategic Stalemate or Strategic Realignment?
So where does this leave us?
-
Russia wants total subjugation of Ukraine and may accept this plan as a pit stop to that end.
-
Ukraine wants sovereignty, not survival under occupation.
-
The U.S. wants to exit the war with tangible benefits and no lingering obligations.
But here’s the paradox: Washington cannot fully leave without losing leverage in the largest war in Europe since WWII. Trump’s posturing about “walking away” hasn’t happened—and likely won’t.
Even more revealing? Despite everything, Trump did meet with Zelensky during the funeral of Pope Francis, describing the meeting as “historic.” Whatever that means in the world of diplomacy, it’s not disengagement.
The Resource Agreement: A Small Victory for Kyiv
In the final hours of April 30th, one part of this story shifted: the Resource Agreement was signed.
What changed?
-
Ukraine now retains full control of land, infrastructure, and state conglomerates
-
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant not included in the deal
-
Profits from new joint investments will be reinvested in Ukraine for a decade
-
Only new U.S. military aid counts as capital contribution—past aid is excluded
In short, Ukraine pushed back and reshaped the deal. It’s not perfect. But it’s not surrender either.
And immediately following its signing, the U.S. approved a $50 million weapons sale to Ukraine—the first such concession since Trump returned to office. It may mark a slow pivot, or at least a nod to Kyiv’s resilience.
Conclusion: A War That Will Not Be Bargained Away
The April 22nd peace plan isn’t dead—but it’s not alive either. It floats in a diplomatic limbo, too generous for the Russians to reject, too dangerous for the Ukrainians to accept.
Behind every paragraph of this proposal is a clash not only of nations but of visions: of sovereignty versus spheres of influence, of legal justice versus pragmatic deals, of survival versus strategy.
Trump may want to cash out of this war. The Kremlin may want to buy time. But Ukraine? It’s playing for existence.
FAQ: The Peace Plan & What It Means
Q: What is the U.S.-proposed 7-point peace plan?
A: It includes Ukrainian territorial concessions, NATO non-membership, lifting of Russian sanctions, economic cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, limited territorial returns to Ukraine, control-sharing over Zaporizhzhia, and security guarantees (excluding U.S. participation).
Q: Why did Ukraine reject the plan?
A: Because it involves legal recognition of Crimea as Russian, legitimizes occupied territory, and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty—all against Ukraine’s constitution.
Q: What are Russia’s demands beyond the plan?
A: Full recognition of occupied territories, demilitarization, denazification, lifting of sanctions, and return of frozen assets.
Q: What is the new Resource Agreement?
A: A revised deal between Ukraine and the U.S. ensuring joint investment control, exclusion of the Zaporizhzhia plant, and future reinvestment of profits in Ukraine.
Q: Is war likely to continue?
A: Yes. Barring a radical shift in the geopolitical landscape or U.S. policy, the conflict remains frozen—but active.
Q: Could the plan still move forward?
A: Possibly, but only in a heavily modified form. Right now, Ukraine and the U.S. are far from aligned on what peace should mean.
