The Kellogg-Witkoff Proposal: Anatomy of a Controversial Peace Plan for Ukraine

On 23 April 2025, in an atmosphere charged with fatigue from war and wary hope, a peace proposal was privately delivered to European and Ukrainian officials in London by US Special Envoy General Keith Kellogg. The same document was reportedly handed to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on the same day by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Though no official document has been published, reasonably consistent reporting by both The Daily Telegraph in London and Russia’s TASS news agency has enabled observers to reconstruct the seven key points of the proposal—dubbed informally as the “Kellogg-Witkoff Plan.”

The Seven Points of the Peace Proposal

1. Recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea by the United States: Crimea would be acknowledged de jure as part of the Russian Federation by the United States (only?), a major concession to Moscow.

   
   

2. Autonomy for occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (along current front lines) under Ukrainian de jure sovereignty: These regions would remain formally part of Ukraine but enjoy a high degree of autonomy, with local militias retaining some policing powers—a model reminiscent of the defunct Minsk agreements.

   
   

3. A phased withdrawal of Russian forces from other occupied territories: In contrast to the treatment of Crimea, other areas occupied after February 2022—primarily parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson—would be returned to Ukrainian control over a set timetable. For an unknown period, the US Government (including the US Armed Forces?) would take control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant facility at Enerhodar, restarting the facility and distributing electricity between the parts of Ukraine currently under Ukrainian and Russian control.

   
   

4. Deployment of a European (non-NATO) peacekeeping force in Ukraine: A significant concession to European capitals, this would allow the EU to provide military stabilisation without NATO involvement, a nod to Russian security sensitivities. There would be a mechanism of accountability for war crimes, the details of which are unclear.

   
   

5. Signing of a US-Ukraine critical minerals agreement prior to final peace: This controversial clause requires Ukraine to commit key mineral extraction rights to US companies as a precondition for the final agreement, raising eyebrows about American commercial motivations.

   
   

6. Lifting of US sanctions on Russia upon partial implementation: Sanctions would be eased once Russia begins troop withdrawals—without waiting for a full settlement, including on Crimea—contradicting European policies tying sanctions relief to full Russian withdrawal.

   
   

7. Permanent neutrality for Ukraine with security guarantees: Ukraine would adopt a formal status of neutrality, backed by international guarantees excluding NATO membership, although the nature of the guarantees remains unspecified. EU membership would be permitted.

Reactions: Sharp Divides and Deep Suspicion

The proposal has been met with alarm, confusion and, in some quarters, quiet intrigue.

Ukrainian Reaction: President Zelenskyy’s office issued a terse statement calling the proposal “unacceptable in its current form,” emphasising that any recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea is “a red line no Ukrainian government can cross.” Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba reportedly told EU counterparts that the document “trades sovereignty for false stability” and accused Washington of “negotiating behind our backs.”

Russian Reaction: Moscow, by contrast, has responded with cautious optimism. A Kremlin spokesperson called the plan “a constructive basis for discussion,” though sources close to the Russian Security Council noted that Moscow was “noncommittal” on the phased withdrawal clause and expected more flexibility regarding military tribunals for war crimes.

European Reaction: European capitals were caught off-guard. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Schulz issued a joint statement reiterating the EU’s stance that “no sanctions will be lifted until the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea”. Diplomats in Brussels were said to be "infuriated" by the lack of consultation and the commercial elements of the deal, particularly the minerals agreement.

The Trump Factor: Undiplomatic Pressure and Abrasive Deadlines

US President Donald Trump, whose administration dispatched Kellogg and Witkoff, has taken a highly personal approach to the process, one that is unorthodox even by the standards of 21st-century diplomacy. In a press conference at Mar-a-Lago following the London meetings, Trump declared, “If Ukraine and Russia don’t figure this out in a few days, we walk. We’re not in the business of endless war. Europe can pay for it if they want a forever war.”

This hardball rhetoric has done little to calm nerves in Kyiv or Brussels. One senior EU official remarked off-record: “This isn’t diplomacy. It’s extortion with a Stars and Stripes on top.”

Uneven Architecture: Crimea Versus the Rest

A striking feature of the proposal is the differential treatment of occupied territories. By separating Crimea from other areas under Russian control, the document implicitly legitimises the 2014 annexation. This not only undermines years of Western policy upholding the international legal order, but threatens to create a precedent for future conflicts over frozen zones of occupation.

Commercial Strings Attached: The Minerals Clause

The requirement that Ukraine sign a critical minerals agreement with the US before any final peace has been interpreted by critics as the monetisation of war diplomacy. While US officials argue this guarantees Ukraine’s economic future, European and Ukrainian officials see it as a veiled attempt to secure long-term strategic resource control for American firms at a time when Ukraine is vulnerable.

Prospects for Acceptance and Compliance

Ukraine is unlikely to accept the plan in its current form, especially with domestic political pressures and military leadership firmly opposed to the compromise on Crimea. Any government that signed such a deal could face national outrage or collapse.

Russia may be tempted by the offer—especially the partial lifting of sanctions and recognition of Crimea—but would likely delay implementation in hopes of extracting further concessions.

The United States may indeed “walk away” from the process. Given Trump’s transactional approach and the electoral pressures of a volatile 2026 midterm cycle, the US might pivot to a hands-off policy or double down on commercial extraction deals in Ukraine, regardless of the war’s outcome.

What Next? Toward a Fractured Future

Should the US exit the negotiations, the conflict may see a return to unrestrained military escalation. Both Ukraine and Russia are reportedly repositioning forces for a new summer offensive. Without a unified Western front, and with Washington appearing more interested in mineral access than mediation, the war may evolve into a prolonged, decentralised conflict—fuelled by European arms, contested regional legitimacy, and unacknowledged occupation.

The Kellogg-Witkoff Plan, then, may be less a blueprint for peace than a map of fractured priorities—one that reveals the underlying tensions between Western actors, between diplomacy and commerce, between sovereignty and strategy. In this divided landscape, the hope for a durable peace remains, but it grows more precarious by the day.