By Hoang Viet
In late November 2025, a document surfaced that, on its face, appeared to represent a sweeping new U.S.-backed peace proposal to end the war in Ukraine. The “28-point peace plan,” pushed publicly by President Donald Trump’s team, demanded Ukraine make sweeping concessions: territory surrendered, military limits imposed, NATO membership forfeited. But behind the headlines lay a far more alarming truth: senior U.S. senators were told the document was not authored by the U.S. — instead it was a draft provided by Russia and relayed via an off-the-books channel to Ukraine. (AP News)
I. The Plan in Public: A U.S. Ultimatum
The proposal was first made public by the White House press office and appeared to urge Kyiv to accept terms by Thanksgiving. In the document’s leaked draft, Ukraine would have to cap its armed forces at 600,000 troops, abandon its bid to join NATO, freeze territorial lines, and implicitly accept Russia’s annexations of Crimea and Donbas — all wrapped in the U.S. name. (reuters.com) President Trump told reporters, “Unless Ukraine accepts this soon, we may withdraw support. It’s not my final offer but time is short.” (The Guardian)
The pace and messaging raised eyebrows in Washington and among Ukraine’s European allies. Rather than presenting the plan as a dialogue, it came across as a near-deadline ultimatum: accept these terms or risk U.S. pulling back.
II. The Secret Channel: Russia, Witkoff & the Backdoor
Here is where the story takes a disturbing turn. According to multiple U.S. senators, including Republican Mike Rounds and Independent Angus King, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them the 28-point document was “essentially the wish list of the Russians” and “not our proposal”. (Financial Times) The senators said Rubio confirmed the document was given to U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff by a Russian intermediary, and the U.S. played more of a courier role than an author.
Multiple investigative outlets report that the Russian intermediary was Kirill Dmitriev — head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, a figure already under U.S. sanctions. Dmitriev met with Witkoff in Miami late October, according to reporting. (Newsweek)
Thus:
- Russia drafts a document pushing its terms for Ukraine.
- That document is handed to a U.S. envoy behind closed doors.
- It is quickly repackaged as a “U.S. proposal” and distributed to Ukraine.
- The U.S. Congress and intelligence oversight are bypassed.
III. Why This Is a “Red Line” Breach
From a national-security perspective, the sequence is deeply problematic:
- Sovereign policy captured by a foreign adversary – If Moscow writes a policy for Washington to deliver, then U.S. policy is effectively being dictated by a hostile power.
- Non-transparent channel – The route via Witkoff and Dmitriev sidestepped the State Department, CIA and Congressional oversight. That violates the checks and balances that protect U.S. foreign-policy decision-making.
- Ukraine’s agency undermined – Kyiv was pressured to accept terms favorable to Moscow under U.S. imprimatur. Ukraine had a right to co-write any settlement; here it appears to be being pressured to sign one drafted by its invader.
- Congress left in the dark – Senators say they were briefed only after the fact; the document had been handled behind closed doors, with little transparency. (CNA)
In short: American foreign policy is meant to advance U.S. interests — but here it may have advanced Russian interests. That is not just a misstep, it is a crisis.
IV. Why Putin and Moscow Pushed Swiftly — and Why Trump’s Weakening Hand Matters
Why did Russia hand this to the U.S. in the first place? Because they judged President Trump’s leverage was waning. With his political base fractured, investigations multiplying and financial risks mounting, Trump may have been viewed as a “useful partner” to push a deal favorable to Moscow before his influence faded.
Putin publicly welcomed the 28-point draft on Nov. 21, saying it “could be used as the basis of a final settlement.” (reuters.com) The swift timeline, lack of broad consultation with Kyiv or Europe, and apparent bypassing of regular diplomatic channels suggest a risky gamble by Moscow — to finalize a de facto win before U.S. policy could shift again.
On the U.S. side, Trump’s directive to deliver the document — and his public framing of it with a deadline for Ukraine’s acceptance — suggests he acted less like a president with oversight, and more like a broker delivering a foreign-drafted contract.
V. The Fallout: Congress Reacts, Allies Unsettled, Ukraine Resists
The reaction in Washington has been sharp. U.S. senators issued a joint statement that the plan “looks more like it was written in Russian to begin with.” (AP News) President Trump’s national-security apparatus scrambled to deny the story. Rubio insists the plan is U.S.-authored “with input from Russia and Ukraine”. (CNA)
Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, cautiously rejected any deal that looks like “capitulation,” even while assessing how to navigate support from Washington. (Le Monde.fr) European and NATO partners have also flagged concerns, declaring that any peace deal must be anchored in Ukrainian sovereignty — not drafted by its adversary.
VI. What It Means for U.S. Foreign Policy, Democracy and Oversight
If verified, this affair points to three major implications:
- Erosion of oversight: Congress, the CIA, and standard diplomatic channels appear sidelined.
- Foreign influence through back-channels: Russia used a private channel to submit policy to a U.S. president and bypassed standard accountability.
- Democratic legitimacy endangered: U.S. citizens expect transparency in how their government shapes war and peace; this model appears covert and unaccountable.
Fundamentally, America cannot credibly lead if its policy is seen as echoing the demands of its adversary.
VII. What to Watch — and What to Ask
- Will Congress launch hearings into the channel used by Trump’s envoy and trace the drafting of the document?
- Will Ukraine demand full transparency on who wrote the 28-point plan and when?
- Will U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials publish or declassify the full text and origination history?
- Will this prompt a re-evaluation of how the U.S. vetts foreign-drafted negotiations?
VIII. Conclusion: A Peace Plan in Name — a Russian Policy in Reality
For Ukraine, the stakes are existential. For Europe, the credibility of NATO and the U.S. guarantee are under strain. And for America’s system of checks and balances, this moment could mark a turning point.
If a foreign government can draft a plan and have the U.S. deliver it under its name — sidestepping oversight and silencing some of its own senators — then the message is clear: the United States is no longer writing its own policy.
That is not a misstep. That is a breach.
Sources
- Associated Press, “U.S. senators say Rubio told them Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is Russia’s ‘wish list’”, Nov 22 2025. (AP News)
- Financial Times, “Lawmakers say US Secretary of State rowed back on Ukraine peace plan”, Nov 23 2025. (Financial Times)
- Reuters, “What are the issues of contention in the US peace plan …”, Nov 21 2025. (reuters.com)
- Axios / Newsweek reporting, “U.S. secretly working on 28-point Ukraine war peace plan”, Nov 2025. (Newsweek)
- Reuters, “Draft of US-backed peace proposal for Ukraine”, Nov 21 2025. (reuters.com)
- Le Monde, “Zelensky, amid political turmoil, remains cautious about US-Russia peace plan”, Nov 21 2025. (Le Monde.fr)