Details of a new peace plan for Ukraine are emerging after officials from the US, Ukraine and its European allies met in Geneva on November 23. They discussed the 28-point plan presented by Russia and the US the previous week, which has been widely criticised as requiring concessions from Kyiv that critics said would be tantamount to surrender.

These two plans, which represent the contrasting positions approved by Ukraine and Russia, are now being discussed in Abu Dhabi by officials from the US, Russia and Ukraine.

The plan which emerged from Geneva is reportedly based on a European counter-proposal to the US-Russia plan that had been developed in Miami by US envoy Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.

Full details of the Geneva plan have yet to be published. But reports suggest that unlike the US-Russian plan, it leaves open the door to Nato membership, removes restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s post-war army, and removes a proposal for an amnesty for war crimes committed since Russia’s invasion in February 2022.

The most contentious issues, including any territory to be ceded by Kyiv and Ukraine’s future Nato membership – something that Russia strongly opposes – will be decided by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Ukraine is calling for a meeting between Trump and Zelensky within days to iron out the remaining issues.

It’s no surprise that neither Ukraine nor its allies in Europe were happy with the the US-Russia deal developed by Witkoff and Dmitriev. Apart from looking more like a plan for Kyiv’s capitulation than a credible pathway to peace, it presents some serious problems – both legal and moral.

Territorial concessions

The 28-point US-Russia proposal suggests Ukraine should concede parts of Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, which would then become internationally recognised as part of Russia. It also calls for the frontlines to be frozen in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, with “de facto recognition” along the current line of contact between the two armies.

ISW map showing the state of the conflict in Ukraine, November 24 2025.
The state of the conflict in Ukraine, November 24 2025. Institute for the Study of War

This would legitimise acquisition of territory by means of force and aggression, and hence would be in contravention of obligations under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The illegality of Russia’s invasion in 2022 was underlined in June 2025 when the Council of Europe established a special tribunal to prosecute senior political and military leadership “for the crime of aggression against Ukraine”.

If the territorial concessions detailed in the US-Russia plan were to be adopted, they would hinder effective investigation and prosecution of any such crimes of aggression – and thus set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Impunity and accountability

The US-Russia plan’s proposed blanket amnesty for war crimes also contradicts international law. The law governing conduct of hostilities – and public international law in general – imposes an obligation for states to investigate, prosecute and punish war crimes.

While international law does not outlaw amnesties in pursuit of reconciliation, for the establishment of truth or to prevent war recurring, these should not interfere with a state’s obligation to investigate and prosecute international crimes. So, blanket amnesties are incompatible with this requirement.

The scale of documented violations in Ukraine over nearly four years makes the idea of an amnesty especially troubling. The Ukrainian authorities, with support from civil society, have documented more than 183,000 alleged war crimes since 2022.

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for senior Russian figures including Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. National prosecutors in Europe are pursuing cases under universal jurisdiction.

Granting amnesty would nullify these investigations. It would signal that even the gravest crimes can go unpunished as a result of political deal-making.

The principles of transitional justice place victims at the centre of any post-conflict processes. They are entitled, under international law, to truth, justice and reparations. But the US-Russia plan does not outline any role for victims. Instead, it effectively deprives them of their right to pursue justice.

Research suggests that peace agreements without mechanisms to ensure accountability all too often end up with further outbreaks of violence. The pursuit of justice, which can include – but should not be limited to – criminal prosecutions, can be slow, costly and imperfect. But it tends to strengthen the rule of law and provide some form of remedy to the victims.

The US-Russia plan’s clause limiting the size of Ukraine’s post-conflict armed forces to 600,000 personnel is also controversial.

It is common to see measures such as demobilisation and disarmament in non-international armed conflicts. This was part of the settlement in peace negotiation processes for Colombia’s lengthy civil war in 2016. But applying them to a state which is the victim of aggression in an international armed conflict reverses the logic of accountability.

Ukraine is the state under attack. Limiting its defence capability while the aggressor retains its forces undermines both security and justice.

A fragile ‘peace’

Critics have described the US-Russia plan as “a gift to Putin”, as it aligns with the Kremlin’s longstanding demands while disregarding Ukraine’s legal rights. It would transform the future of millions of Ukrainians into a bargaining chip for great-power politics.

However, it appears that Kyiv’s European allies recognise this danger. The negotiations now underway in Abu Dhabi will be vital – as will any meeting between Trump and Zelensky to agree the framework of a new deal which fairly represents Kyiv’s position.

A genuine and just peace agreement must reflect the system of international law which, for 80 years, has sought to prevent the sort of aggression that Russia has unleashed on Ukraine. The 28-point plan presented by the US and Russia clearly failed to meet that test.

It is now up to Ukraine and its allies to ensure that any plan which does go forward rests on justice, accountability and the rights of victims – not on concessions to an aggressor.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Selbi Durdiyeva, Nottingham Trent University

Read more:

Selbi Durdiyeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.