Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's new proposal to end the war in the country is being discussed on the international agenda. The proposal envisages a ceasefire, the mutual withdrawal of Russian and Ukrainian troops from the front line, and the creation of a buffer zone between the parties. The fact that the plan was developed jointly with US and European officials raises questions about what role it could play in a possible negotiation process.
In a statement to Modern.az on the issue, Ukrainian political scientist Stanislav Zhelikhovsky said that the proposal should be viewed more as a potential framework for future negotiations than as a final peace agreement.
"I would evaluate this proposal more as a potential framework for negotiations than as a final peace agreement. Its most important feature is that, apparently, this document was prepared jointly by Ukraine, the US, and partners in Europe. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that discussions with US special representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have been combined into a common framework. This includes issues such as a ceasefire, mutual withdrawal of troops, and the creation of a possible free economic zone managed by a third party."
The political scientist noted that for Kyiv, the main issue is that the ceasefire and troop withdrawal are accompanied by reliable guarantee mechanisms:
"From Ukraine's perspective, this idea can only be considered consistent with the country's interests if the ceasefire and troop withdrawal are accompanied by real and reliable guarantee mechanisms. Kyiv simply cannot accept a pause that would allow Russia to regroup and then resume the offensive. In this regard, the proposed buffer zone could be useful. However, its exact geography, governance principles, monitoring mechanism, and military status will be crucial. Most importantly, Ukraine needs guarantees that Russia will not be able to unilaterally use this mechanism."
According to S. Zhelikhovsky, the most important and unresolved issue at the current stage is security guarantees:
"Security guarantees are still the main unresolved issue. It is unlikely that Ukraine will consider mere political statements sufficient. Kyiv will need long-term military assistance, the supply of air defense systems and missiles, intelligence and satellite support, continued development of Ukraine's defense industry, as well as an agreed mechanism for immediate international response if Russia violates the ceasefire. Recent commitments by Europe – including accelerating the supply of air defense systems and agreements allowing Ukraine to produce long-range missiles – indicate the gradual formation of such a security architecture."
He emphasized that the participation of US and European officials in the process indicates the possibility of certain changes in Washington's approach, but this cannot yet be considered a fundamental shift in US policy:
"The involvement of US and European officials in the process is significant because it indicates a potential move towards a more coordinated negotiation framework than the Trump administration's attempts to achieve a quick political settlement. However, I would not yet call this a fundamental change in Washington's policy. The decisive point will be whether the US is prepared to use its economic and political leverage against Moscow if Russia rejects this proposal."
The political scientist believes that the plan in question could also be an important test for determining Moscow's real intentions:
"This plan could undoubtedly pave the way for serious negotiations, but I would also consider it a test of Moscow's real intentions. If Russia accepts the basic principle of a ceasefire and mutual withdrawal of military forces, negotiations could move on to more difficult issues, including territorial and security guarantees. If Moscow rejects even this framework, Washington and European governments will have a more serious basis to conclude that Russia is not ready for a genuine compromise."
S. Zhelikhovsky stated that in such a situation, Ukraine and the US may have to use more serious pressure mechanisms against Russia, in addition to diplomatic efforts:
"In that case, Kyiv and Washington may have to combine diplomacy with stronger means of pressure. This could include tougher sanctions, more serious restrictions on Russia's energy revenues, additional military aid to Ukraine, and continued efforts to strengthen Ukraine's air defense capabilities with long-range strike capabilities. The most important point is that a ceasefire cannot be equated with peace. The real test is whether the proposed mechanism will prevent the ceasefire from becoming merely an operational pause before the next Russian offensive. If Ukraine, the US, and Europe can create real implementation and security mechanisms, this proposal could serve as a fundamental basis for serious negotiations. Otherwise, there is a risk that it will turn into another temporary diplomatic initiative."
In a statement to our website, Russian political scientist and Deputy Director of the Institute for Political Studies, Darya Grevtsova, said that Russia currently views the discussed peace plan negatively:
"Russia views this peace plan negatively. We see that the proposed buffer zone is currently intended to be subject to foreign administration. The administration of this zone, which is supposedly to be the territory of a neutral country, is actually planned to be given to Europeans who oppose Russia. They want to control and manage Donbas, and at the same time prohibit the Russian language and the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church there. They call all this a 'neutral zone'. That is, in essence, this territory will be controlled by forces hostile to Russia. Of course, Russia will not agree to this."
The political scientist noted that Moscow has stated several times that one of the main goals of the war is to prevent Ukraine from becoming a state hostile to Russia and to change the existing political course in the country:
_n"Russia has already stated several times that it is waging war not for territories, but to prevent Ukraine from becoming a state hostile to Russia, to prevent the prohibition of the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church, and to change the regime that prevents the establishment of friendly relations with Russia. Currently, a large number of people are imprisoned in Ukraine precisely for their pro-Russian positions. Therefore, the implementation of Zelensky's proposed plan will not change this regime in any way. In such a case, there is no point for Russia to agree to that plan."
According to D. Grevtsova, stopping military operations along the current line of contact does not eliminate the risk of a new conflict in the future:
"The third reason is that it is impossible to stop military operations along the line of contact. Because in this case, the question of whether this or that territory belongs to Russia or Ukraine will remain unresolved, and in the future, there will be a risk of a new war for these territories. Russia is currently offering such an opportunity: it can withdraw its troops from Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and Sumy regions, and in return, Ukraine must withdraw its troops from Donbas. That is, it is about a certain sense of territorial exchange and the de facto consolidation of each side's control over these territories. Zelensky, however, does not want to do this. He, of course, wants Russia to withdraw all its troops from Sumy and other regions, but he does not agree to Ukraine also withdrawing its troops from those territories. In addition, he does not want to recognize the territorial status of the current situation. Thus, Zelensky wants to portray Russia as a defeated country: Russia withdraws all its troops, and Ukraine remains in its previous positions. Russia, of course, does not want to portray itself as the defeated party. Because it has both military successes and certain advantages on the battlefield."
D. Grevtsova emphasized that stopping military operations without formalizing the existing situation could lead to a new confrontation in the future:
"If Ukraine does not want to formalize the existing realities on the ground, then stopping military operations along the current line of contact could lead to the start of new battles in the future. Because in this case, the question of who owns these territories will again come to the fore. The fourth reason is that for lasting and solid peace, all causes of the war must be eliminated. The main reason is that the West wants to turn Ukraine into its tool against Russia and fight against Russia with the hands of Ukrainians. Here, the main issues that Russia wants to eliminate in Ukraine are the restrictions on the Russian language, the prohibitions against the Russian Orthodox Church, and the pressure against individuals who want to cooperate with Russia. These must be reflected in the peace agreement."
The political scientist stated that if these issues are not reflected in the peace agreement, stopping military operations is not in Russia's interests:
"If these provisions are not in the peace agreement, then what is the point of stopping military operations? After all, the main factors that caused the war will not be eliminated. If all this is kept as it is, young people growing up in Ukraine today could turn into kamikazes in the future and be sent to Russia to carry out explosions in buses, subways, and residential buildings. Russia, in no case, can allow such a situation."
