Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan
By Dr Malgorzata Bonikowska
(President, Centre for Intl Relations, Poland)
American President Donald Trump has asked his overseas envoy Steve Witkoff to hold talks at the Kremlin next week to push for a deal to end the war in Ukraine. This after he recently unveiled a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, which has sparked global debate over how the international community should address Europe’s largest armed conflict since the Cold War. Presented as a pragmatic roadmap to end hostilities, the plan places significant obligations on Ukraine while offering Russia a pathway toward de facto recognition of its territorial claims.
While its proponents frame it as a realistic attempt to halt the bloodshed, reactions across Europe have ranged from scepticism to criticism. For India, balancing ties with both Russia and the West while consolidating its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the plan warrants attention. It reflects shifting priorities in Washington, exposes divisions within Europe, and could shape the broader strategic environment in which India operates.
Key Provisions of the Plan
At its core, Trump’s proposal anticipates major concessions from Ukraine. Kyiv would need to formally acknowledge Russian control over Crimea, as well as the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk occupied by Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion. The plan also calls for a reduction in Ukraine’s armed forces, from roughly 880,000 to around 600,000, limiting its capacity to deter future aggression. Additionally, Ukraine would be expected to forgo any ambition to join NATO, though European Union membership might remain possible.
The proposal mandates national elections within 100 days of a settlement—a compressed timeline for a nation still grappling with active hostilities and displacement. It envisions a broad non-aggression pact among Russia, Ukraine, and selected European states, along with mechanisms to monitor compliance and provide security guarantees. Economic incentives for Ukraine are mentioned but remain vague, while Russia is not explicitly required to withdraw forces from occupied territories before recognition of its territorial gains.
Kyiv’s Standpoint
From Kyiv’s perspective, Trump’s plan is highly contentious. Ukrainian leaders are likely to view it as favouring Moscow, undermining national sovereignty, and sidelining Ukraine in decisions over its own territory. Public opinion may reflect scepticism, with concern over rapid elections, troop reductions, and concessions that could provoke backlash and polarization. Many Ukrainians remain committed to defending territorial integrity, and measures perceived as externally imposed could weaken public trust in institutions and complicate post-conflict reconstruction.
European Responses: Concern and Division
European governments, particularly those along NATO’s eastern flank, have reacted with alarm. Poland, a steadfast supporter of Ukraine and a neighbour directly exposed to potential Russian pressure, has categorically rejected any settlement negotiated without Kyiv’s full involvement. Alongside the Baltic states, Warsaw emphasises that rewarding territorial conquest would undermine Europe’s security architecture and set a dangerous precedent.
Western European powers, including Germany and France, have been more cautious but remain critical. They stress that any durable peace must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. A solution imposed through bilateral negotiations between Washington and Moscow—particularly if Ukraine is marginalised—risks fracturing transatlantic unity at a time when Europe faces escalating security threats.
This divergence in the West has implications for India. It signals a reorientation of Washington’s priorities that may reduce U.S. focus on European security while accelerating engagement in Asia. A fragmented Europe, uncertain about American reliability, could find it challenging to coordinate policy toward Russia and China, shaping a more complex strategic context for New Delhi.
Implications for India
India’s strategic calculus is shaped by three core considerations: maintaining stable ties with Russia, deepening engagement with the United States and Europe, and preserving space for strategic autonomy. Trump’s plan intersects with all three dimensions.
One, Russia remains a crucial partner for India, particularly in defence cooperation, energy supplies, and broader geopolitical balancing. A settlement that formalises Russian territorial gains could strengthen Moscow’s global bargaining position and reinforce its pivot toward Asia. This may create opportunities in sectors such as technology, nuclear energy, and resource collaboration. Yet a more confident Russia could also deepen military alignment with China—a scenario New Delhi must monitor closely.
Two, a swift resolution of the Ukraine conflict—regardless of fairness—could free U.S. diplomatic, military, and financial bandwidth for the Indo-Pacific. This could benefit India, provided Washington sustains its commitment to supporting New Delhi’s regional capabilities and balance. However, the plan’s marginalization of European partners raises questions about U.S. predictability, a factor India must consider when calibrating posture.
Three, India positions itself as a leading voice of the Global South, advocating diplomacy, sovereignty, and negotiation. A settlement seen as imposed on Ukraine without broad participation may resonate poorly among developing nations. If the plan reduces global economic uncertainty and stabilizes energy markets, India and other emerging economies could gain materially. New Delhi will therefore weigh both normative principles and economic outcomes in assessing the plan.
Potential Risks for India
Despite possible opportunities, the plan carries significant risks. A peace deal that legitimizes territorial conquest could normalise similar behaviour elsewhere—a notable concern for India given its own border disputes. Additionally, a strengthened Russia-China axis could complicate the strategic environment, even if Russia seeks to maintain balanced relations with India.
Another concern is the precedent of great-power bargaining over smaller states’ sovereignty. India has consistently opposed such arrangements, advocating inclusive diplomacy and multilateral engagement. A settlement crafted mainly through secret negotiations between Washington and Moscow may therefore conflict with principles India routinely defends on the global stage.
In conclusion, Trump’s 28-point peace plan, framed as a pragmatic roadmap to end a costly conflict, signals a notable shift in the United States’ approach to global security, prioritizing rapid conflict resolution over principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. While it unsettles Europe and raises questions about Western cohesion, the plan also has broader implications for international norms and the strategic balance across Eurasia.
For India, it is neither solely an opportunity nor purely a threat; it underscores the fluidity of geopolitics and the importance of navigating the emerging order with clarity, autonomy, and foresight. Developments in Ukraine offer vital lessons on balancing principles, diplomacy, and national interests in a multipolar world while highlighting the interconnectedness of European security with Indo-Pacific stability and strategic decisions New Delhi must make in response to a rapidly evolving international landscape. — INFA