Any peace deal in Ukraine must be just and fair – the plan proposed by the US and Russia was neither

Particulars of a brand new peace plan for Ukraine are rising after officers from the US, Ukraine and its European allies met in Geneva on November 23. They mentioned the 28-point plan offered by Russia and the US the earlier week, which has been broadly criticised as requiring concessions from Kyiv that critics stated could be tantamount to give up.

These two plans, which symbolize the contrasting positions permitted by Ukraine and Russia, are actually being mentioned in Abu Dhabi by officers from the US, Russia and Ukraine.

The plan which emerged from Geneva is reportedly primarily 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 particulars of the Geneva plan have but to be printed. However reviews recommend that not like the US-Russian plan, it leaves open the door to Nato membership, removes restrictions on the scale of Ukraine’s post-war military, and removes a proposal for an amnesty for warfare crimes dedicated since Russia’s invasion in February 2022.

Probably the most contentious points, together with any territory to be ceded by Kyiv and Ukraine’s future Nato membership – one thing that Russia strongly opposes – will probably be determined by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and his US counterpart, Donald Trump. Ukraine is looking for a gathering between Trump and Zelensky inside days to iron out the remaining points.

It’s no shock that neither Ukraine nor its allies in Europe had been pleased with the the US-Russia deal developed by Witkoff and Dmitriev. Other than wanting extra like a plan for Kyiv’s capitulation than a reputable pathway to peace, it presents some critical issues – each authorized and ethical.

Territorial concessions

The 28-point US-Russia proposal suggests Ukraine ought to concede components of Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory together with Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, which might then turn out to be internationally recognised as a part of Russia. It additionally requires the frontlines to be frozen in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, with “de facto recognition” alongside the present line of contact between the 2 armies.

This may legitimise acquisition of territory via drive and aggression, and therefore could be in contravention of obligations below Article 2(4) of the UN Constitution, which prohibits the “the risk or use of drive towards 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 particular tribunal to prosecute senior political and army management “for the crime of aggression towards Ukraine”.

If the territorial concessions detailed within the US-Russia plan had been to be adopted, they might hinder efficient investigation and prosecution of any such crimes of aggression – and thus set a harmful precedent for future conflicts.

Impunity and accountability

The US-Russia plan’s proposed blanket amnesty for warfare crimes additionally contradicts worldwide regulation. The regulation governing conduct of hostilities – and public worldwide regulation generally – imposes an obligation for states to research, prosecute and punish warfare crimes.

Whereas worldwide regulation doesn’t outlaw amnesties in pursuit of reconciliation, for the institution of fact or to stop warfare recurring, these shouldn’t intervene with a state’s obligation to research and prosecute worldwide crimes. So, blanket amnesties are incompatible with this requirement.

The size of documented violations in Ukraine over almost 4 years makes the concept of an amnesty particularly troubling. The Ukrainian authorities, with help from civil society, have documented greater than 183,000 alleged warfare crimes since 2022.

The Worldwide Felony Court docket has issued arrest warrants for senior Russian figures together with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Nationwide prosecutors in Europe are pursuing instances below common jurisdiction.

Granting amnesty would nullify these investigations. It will sign that even the gravest crimes can go unpunished because of political deal-making.

The ideas of transitional justice place victims on the centre of any post-conflict processes. They’re entitled, below worldwide regulation, to fact, justice and reparations. However the US-Russia plan doesn’t define any function for victims. As an alternative, it successfully deprives them of their proper to pursue justice.

Analysis means that peace agreements with out mechanisms to make sure accountability all too typically find yourself with additional outbreaks of violence. The pursuit of justice, which may embody – however shouldn’t be restricted to – felony prosecutions, will be gradual, expensive and imperfect. Nevertheless it tends to strengthen the rule of regulation and supply some type of treatment to the victims.

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

It’s common to see measures corresponding to demobilisation and disarmament in non-international armed conflicts. This was a part of the settlement in peace negotiation processes for Colombia’s prolonged civil warfare in 2016. However making use of them to a state which is the sufferer of aggression in a global armed battle reverses the logic of accountability.

Ukraine is the state below assault. Limiting its defence functionality whereas the aggressor retains its forces undermines each safety and justice.

A fragile ‘peace’

Critics have described the US-Russia plan as “a present to Putin”, because it aligns with the Kremlin’s longstanding calls for whereas disregarding Ukraine’s authorized rights. It will remodel the way forward for thousands and thousands of Ukrainians right into a bargaining chip for great-power politics.

Nonetheless, it seems that Kyiv’s European allies recognise this hazard. The negotiations now underway in Abu Dhabi will probably be very important – as will any assembly between Trump and Zelensky to agree the framework of a brand new deal which pretty represents Kyiv’s place.

A real and simply peace settlement should replicate the system of worldwide regulation which, for 80 years, has sought to stop the form of aggression that Russia has unleashed on Ukraine. The 28-point plan offered by the US and Russia clearly failed to fulfill that check.

It’s now as much as Ukraine and its allies to make sure that any plan which does go ahead rests on justice, accountability and the rights of victims – not on concessions to an aggressor.