The new peace plan associated with Donald Trump has generated intense discussion among observers who follow the war closely. The proposal tries to freeze the conflict along current lines and redirect European security in a new direction. This makes it attractive to some and unacceptable to others. Europe rejects its core assumptions. Russia considers it incomplete. Ukraine sees it as a direct threat to state survival.
For an audience willing to look at the situation honestly, the central question remains whether such a plan is feasible under present military and political conditions. The answer depends less on diplomacy and more on what is happening on the ground.
The proposal aims to stop the war quickly by locking in the current reality. It accepts Russian control over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. It divides Kherson and Zaporizhzhia along existing lines of control. Ukraine is permanently blocked from joining NATO. Its armed forces are capped in size and restricted in development. In exchange, Washington offers conditional security guarantees.
The plan also includes a significant economic component. Frozen Russian assets would be split between reconstruction and joint investment programs. Russia would begin a gradual return to global markets. The theory is that mutual economic interest reduces incentives for future conflict.
Politically, Ukraine would hold new elections soon after a ceasefire and the entire agreement would be supervised by an international council chaired by Trump.
For experts following the region, the structure is clear. The plan reshapes Ukraine into a neutral buffer state and uses economic integration to placate Russia.
European governments reject the idea that borders can be changed through military aggression. They argue that recognizing Russia’s gains would break a core principle that Europe relies on for stability. They also warn that tying Ukraine’s hands militarily would destabilize the region rather than secure it.
Ukraine is even more adamant. For Kyiv, accepting the plan would not bring safety. It would institutionalize vulnerability. Officials describe the proposal as incompatible with Ukrainian sovereignty. Zelensky’s public statements reflect this view. He has repeatedly said the country cannot be forced into a settlement that leaves it defenceless or dismembered.
Europe and Ukraine therefore work from a different starting point. Their counterposition emphasizes long-term deterrence, strong security guarantees and sustained pressure on Russia. They see this as the only way to prevent a future conflict that would be even more destructive.
Russia has issued its own list of conditions for peace. These include recognition of all five annexed regions, permanent neutrality for Ukraine, strict limits on Ukraine’s military, protection of Russian cultural rights and full removal of sanctions.
These are not trial balloons. They are firm demands. Russian officials repeatedly state that they must be met before any meaningful settlement can occur.
This is important for readers who follow strategy closely. The Trump plan does not fully meet these conditions. It accepts some territorial changes but not the unconditional recognition Russia demands. It offers sanctions relief but only in phases and with mechanisms for reversal. It allows Ukraine to remain an independent, Western aligned state, which Moscow still views with suspicion.
Russia would likely accept parts of the plan but push hard for revisions that move it closer to its own memorandum.
The decisive factor for anyone trying to judge feasibility is the situation on the ground. Ukraine’s position has worsened. Ammunition shortages, manpower strain and consistent Russian pressure have produced a slow but steady loss of territory. Independent mapping confirms this trend. Zelensky acknowledged the gravity of the situation in his most recent address. His tone was noticeably more sober than earlier in the war.
Russia currently holds the initiative. It has more men, more equipment and a more secure supply chain. This matters because negotiations rarely produce outcomes that contradict battlefield momentum. When one side advances, its willingness to settle on equal terms decreases.
For Ukraine, this creates a painful dilemma. The weaker its position becomes, the more pressure appears for a ceasefire. Yet accepting a deal built on battlefield losses risks setting the stage for a larger conflict later. This is why Kyiv continues to refuse concessions even in a difficult moment.
A realistic analysis shows that the Trump plan cannot work under current conditions. Ukraine cannot accept permanent territorial loss and forced neutrality. Europe cannot accept a peace that validates conquest. Russia cannot accept anything that stops short of full recognition of annexations and unrestricted sanctions removal.
These goals do not intersect. Even if the parties signed a ceasefire, the underlying pressures would remain. Ukraine would still feel exposed. Russia would still seek strategic advantage. Europe would still prepare for the possibility that fighting resumes.
Diplomacy does not function when the military balance and political objectives are moving in opposite directions. That is the situation today.
For readers genuinely interested in whether peace is possible, the picture is clear. The Trump proposal is detailed and ambitious, but it runs straight into three immovable realities. Ukraine fears it would lose its ability to survive as a state. Europe refuses to legitimize territorial conquest. Russia sees the plan as only a partial victory and wants more. As long as the battlefield continues in Russia’s favor and Ukraine struggles to hold the line, these positions will not shift enough to make the plan workable. The war will continue to be shaped by ground conditions more than by documents drafted in foreign capitals.
Youp Troost