The leadership in Ukraine has prepared a counterproposal in response to a Trump administration plan that has faced backlash for giving in too much to Russia. While the counteroffer reinforces some of Kyiv’s previous requests, it also suggests possible compromises on long-standing issues.
According to the plan shared with The New York Times, there would be no limits on the size of the Ukrainian military, a U.S.-backed “European security contingent” would be established on Ukrainian soil to ensure safety, and frozen Russian funds would be allocated for damage repairs in Ukraine caused by the conflict.
These three points may be unacceptable to the Kremlin, yet some aspects of the Ukrainian proposal indicate a willingness to find common ground. Notably, there is no mention of Ukraine reclaiming all the territory taken by Russia or a requirement for Ukraine to join NATO, issues previously emphasized by President Volodymyr Zelensky as non-negotiable.
On Friday, Mr. Trump traveled to Rome to attend Pope Francis’s funeral on Saturday. Mr. Zelensky had also planned to go, but his spokesperson indicated that this depends on the situation in Ukraine, following Russian attacks this week in Kyiv and elsewhere that resulted in numerous casualties.
After arriving in Rome, Mr. Trump posted on social media that Russia and Ukraine were “very close to a deal” and encouraged both sides to meet directly to finalize arrangements. Earlier in the day, he mentioned the possibility of a meeting with Mr. Zelensky at the funeral. A senior Ukrainian official, who requested anonymity, suggested that if Mr. Zelensky attends the event, he may attempt to present Ukraine’s counterproposal directly to Mr. Trump.
“In the next days, significant meetings may occur — meetings that could bring us closer to peace for Ukraine,” Mr. Zelensky said on Friday, sounding unusually optimistic compared to his recent statements.
If the two leaders meet, it would mark their first encounter since Mr. Zelensky’s troubling visit to the White House in February, when Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance criticized the Ukrainian president during a televised confrontation in the Oval Office.
This would also take place after days of tension between the White House and Ukraine’s leadership regarding the details of a potential peace agreement with Russia.
Mr. Zelensky rejected a proposal from the White House made public this week calling for the U.S. to acknowledge Russia’s control over the Crimean Peninsula, annexed illegally by the Kremlin in 2014. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused Mr. Zelensky of being “inflammatory” and claimed that his refusal to accept White House demands would “extend the conflict.”
Despite the tensions, there appears to be some possibility for compromise between Washington and Kyiv, although both sides’ positions are not firmly established.
It remains unclear what Moscow would find acceptable.
Ukraine’s recent proposal does not insist on guaranteeing membership in NATO — a point staunchly opposed by Moscow — although it has traditionally been a priority for Mr. Zelensky. It states instead: “Ukraine’s NATO membership depends on consensus among Alliance members.”
During talks in London and Paris, American officials reiterated Mr. Trump’s stance against NATO membership for Ukraine, but mentioned this position would not bind future U.S. administrations if they choose to support Ukraine’s membership.
“The next U.S. administration could decide to allow Ukraine into NATO,” American officials conveyed to the Ukrainians, as reported by someone present at the Paris meeting last week. U.S. officials were clear that Ukraine would not accept any restrictions on its potential NATO membership.
The White House has openly supported Ukraine regarding its military’s future setup. The Kremlin has insisted that Ukraine’s military, now the largest and best-trained in Europe aside from Russia’s, face strict size and capability limitations. Officials from the Trump administration have assured Ukraine that they would not support such restrictions.
While Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance showed a willingness this week to recognize Russia’s claim to Crimea, they made it clear to Ukrainian representatives that they would not force Kyiv to do so, nor did they expect European nations to follow the U.S. stance.
However, despite Mr. Trump’s claim that “we’re pretty close” to a deal, significant obstacles remain. All parties agree that for serious peace talks to commence, there must be a cessation of hostilities, yet achieving a cease-fire seems increasingly difficult.
Following Mr. Trump’s criticism of Mr. Zelensky for not backing the White House proposal this week, Russia launched an attack on Kyiv that resulted in at least 12 fatalities and 90 injuries. This attack provoked an unusual rebuke from Mr. Trump directed at Mr. Putin, although previous assaults, including one in the eastern city of Sumy on Palm Sunday that killed 34, received minimal American response.
Russia has disregarded a 30-day cease-fire, which was requested by the Trump administration and accepted by Ukraine. Even a one-day truce proposed by Mr. Putin for Easter did not hold, with both sides blaming each other for the continuation of fighting.
There is also the question of territory.
Since Mr. Putin’s invasion began in February 2022, Russian forces have taken control of a large area of Ukraine, primarily in the eastern Donbas region, as well as a corridor of land in the south connecting to Crimea. The Kremlin has made it clear it will not relinquish any of this territory, which includes significant parts of four Ukrainian provinces that Mr. Putin has declared as part of Russia.
In their proposal, the Ukrainians state that their country should be “fully restored,” without detailing what this entails. While Mr. Zelensky has consistently maintained that the goal is to recover all originally Ukrainian territory since the country’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, including Crimea, Ukraine’s latest proposal purposely remains ambiguous on this matter.
“Territorial issues could be discussed following a complete and unconditional cease-fire,” the Ukrainian proposal simply states.
Trump administration officials have characterized Mr. Zelensky’s aim of driving all Russian troops out of occupied regions as unrealistic; the American proposal would imply tacit acceptance of Russian control over these territories. Ukraine and its European allies consider this would reward Russian aggression.
Although this would be a painful concession for Ukraine, the Trump administration has not acquiesced to all territorial demands from Russia. For example, the White House has refused to support Russia’s call for Ukraine to withdraw from all the regions that Mr. Putin claims as part of Russia.
One participant in the discussions mentioned that the White House views this as “an unreasonable and unachievable demand that the United States would not endorse.”
This week, Mr. Vance indicated that the U.S. would exit negotiations if both parties failed to agree on a “freeze” of current territorial lines.
U.S. officials later clarified that while it’s unlikely there would be any change in the amount of territory under Russian control in future negotiations, Ukrainian officials have expressed intentions to propose territorial exchanges to enhance their defense. Trump administration officials have privately reassured Ukraine that they would advocate for such swaps, but could not guarantee Russia’s acceptance.
