•Ceasefire Tied to NATO Neutrality and Zaporizhzhia Control
In a renewed diplomatic push to bring the prolonged war in Ukraine to a halt, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly advanced a series of contentious peace proposals to Ukrainian officials.
The proposals—delivered in a classified meeting last week—include Ukraine’s formal withdrawal of its NATO ambitions, the cession of Crimea to Russia, and an unprecedented U.S. bid to assume control over the embattled Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
According to The Wall Street Journal, senior U.S. officials handed over the peace framework to Ukrainian representatives during a closed-door session in Paris on April 17.
The move is part of Trump’s broader initiative to establish the U.S. as the primary broker in negotiations to end a war that has devastated Ukraine and strained global alliances since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.
One of the most striking elements of the proposal is the suggested creation of a neutral security buffer around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—Europe’s largest nuclear facility—which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war.
Under the U.S. plan, this zone would be placed under American jurisdiction, a proposal that has raised eyebrows in Kyiv and across Europe.
President Trump has taken a personal interest in Ukraine’s nuclear infrastructure. In a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in March, Trump reportedly advocated for U.S. oversight of nuclear facilities in Ukraine, arguing that American stewardship would offer the best protection against sabotage or misuse amid the ongoing conflict.
In a more controversial clause, the U.S. proposal suggests Ukraine should formally cede Crimea—a region annexed by Russia in 2014 and the epicenter of geopolitical disputes ever since.
While this aligns with long-standing Russian demands, it stands in stark contrast to Ukraine’s firm position that all occupied territories must be returned before any peace can be discussed.
Notably, the issue of Ukraine’s long-sought NATO membership was addressed indirectly. The Trump administration reportedly proposed that Ukraine renounce its NATO aspirations, effectively placing the country in a neutral status.
However, the U.S. did not offer guarantees on Ukraine’s future security arrangements or alternative defense partnerships.
Meanwhile, the proposal does not acknowledge Russia’s sovereignty over four eastern Ukrainian regions that Moscow claims to have annexed in 2022.
Yet, it also stops short of demanding a full Russian withdrawal from those areas, leaving ambiguity about Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
While U.S. officials maintain that the document is a flexible framework rather than a rigid ultimatum, Ukrainian officials have expressed deep skepticism over the viability and fairness of the terms.
Sources close to the negotiations say that Kyiv views many of the provisions as skewed in Moscow’s favor and incompatible with Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term security interests.
The proposals also raise concerns among European allies, some of whom fear that such concessions could set a dangerous precedent and embolden further acts of aggression by Russia or other adversaries.
Despite that, the U.S. has not made clear whether it would back European nations with military force if they chose to intervene more directly in Ukraine.
As diplomatic efforts ramp up, a critical five-party summit is scheduled to take place in London later this week. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to attend, alongside key European and Ukrainian officials.
The goal is to consolidate a unified position before formally presenting any proposal to Russia for consideration.
While the Trump administration insists it is committed to ending the war through diplomacy, it has also warned that continued stalling in negotiations could lead to reduced international mediation efforts.
“This is not a take-it-or-leave-it offer,” one senior State Department official said. “It’s a pathway to peace, but it will require difficult decisions from all sides.”
For now, Ukraine appears to be weighing its options carefully, balancing the urgent need for peace with the enduring cost of territorial compromise.
As the war enters its fourth year, the next few weeks may prove pivotal in shaping not only Ukraine’s future but also the broader geopolitical order in Europe.
Share This Post