Ukraine is preparing to submit a significantly revised peace proposal to the White House as early as Tuesday, following intense diplomatic activity aimed at preventing any settlement that would compel Kyiv to surrender territory to Russia. President Volodymyr Zelensky, fresh from high-stakes discussions with European and NATO counterparts, emphasized that he is legally bound—under both international and Ukrainian law—not to cede sovereign land. This proactive move comes amid international concern that the United States might push for a peace deal requiring substantial Ukrainian concessions.
The announcement follows weekend negotiations between Ukrainian and U.S. officials that reportedly did not result in mutually acceptable terms. Kyiv’s diplomatic push seeks to solidify international backing for its uncompromising stance on territorial integrity while countering perceived pressure from Washington.
Kyiv Solidifies International Support
President Zelensky spent Monday securing support from key European allies. Meetings included high-profile talks in London with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, interpreted by observers as a show of unified support for Ukraine’s position. Zelensky later traveled to Brussels for discussions with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, with a scheduled meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Tuesday.
This intensive diplomacy precedes the submission of the updated plan. According to Zelensky, the initial U.S. draft settlement—which Kyiv and European leaders broadly rejected as unduly favorable to Moscow—has been slimmed down from 28 points to 20. Crucially, the Ukrainian leader stated that the revised document preserves all “pro-Ukrainian” elements and contains no “compromise” regarding sovereign territory.
Territorial Integrity Remains Key Sticking Point
Sensitive issues remaining in contention include the ultimate control of the eastern Donbas region and the status of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Earlier versions of the U.S. draft reportedly envisioned Ukraine giving up full control of the Donbas and suggested splitting the power generated by the Zaporizhzhia plant between Russian and Ukrainian interests—provisions Kyiv vehemently rejected.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly characterized Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a rapid settlement, claiming Moscow was amenable to Washington’s proposed terms. In response, Zelensky noted he was awaiting an in-person debriefing from chief negotiator Rustem Umerova following the talks in the U.S., stressing that certain sensitive matters “can only be discussed in person.”
Battlefield Realities and Civilian Toll
The diplomatic maneuvering occurs while heavy fighting continues on the ground. Russian chief of the general staff, Valery Gerasimov, claimed recent advances, specifically targeting Myrnohrad near the strategic hub of Pokrovsk. Moscow claimed the capture of Pokrovsk, a move that would bring Russia closer to full occupation of the Donbas provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. However, Ukraine contests this claim, with military officials providing foreign media with live footage indicating active combat within the city limits.
Separately, Russian forces continue to target critical infrastructure. A recent overnight drone strike left the northwestern city of Sumy without power, with local officials reporting more than a dozen strikes on energy facilities. The civilian death toll from one of the deadliest recent Russian attacks in the western city of Ternopil tragically rose to 38, including eight children, after the recovery of additional bodies.
Zelensky continues to insist that any fundamental change to Ukraine’s borders would necessarily require approval through a national referendum. While European support remains strong, divisions persist concerning future military strategy; certain countries, including the UK and France, have discussed the potential for deploying international troops, a concept met with skepticism by others like Germany and Italy. Defining the parameters of future security guarantees underwritten by the U.S. remains an undefined but critical element as leaders aim for a “just and lasting peace.”