For example, Ukrainian commentator Vitaly Portnikov pointed to point number 2, which talks about a non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. It says that “all ambiguities from the past 30 years will be considered resolved.”

“What does this mean, no one knows. What does ‘ambiguities’ mean? And how will this be related to the Russian occupation of part of Ukraine?” Portnikov asks in his. “Or how can the commitment that Russia will not attack neighboring countries be legally anchored?” he added to another point, according to which Moscow is “expected” not to attack its neighbors and NATO will not expand further.

The commentator also paused to consider that Ukraine would lose security guarantees – it is also unclear what exactly he means by this – if it “unreasonably launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg”. “Why are Moscow and St. Petersburg considered cities that cannot be shot at? Shoot the rest of Russia as you wish,” he ironically assessed.

Former journalist, now a soldier of the 13th Charter Brigade, Yuri Butusov, notes the word “unreasonable” at this point, for example. “Because Ukraine, ‘just like that’ attacks Russia, Moscow, St. Petersburg,” he sarcastically commented on his YouTube channel, “Of course, this is a joke.”

Ukrainians got limits on their army. Russians didn't

He also pointed to a point that proposes that the Ukrainian armed forces have a maximum of 600,000 soldiers, but does not in any way limit the number of Russian military personnel. He also touched on point 15 in the proposal, which states that a US-Russian working group will ensure compliance with the agreement.

"So, security control is done by America and Russia. What did not allow them to control security before? How will this group be better than the OSCE mission? We already had security guarantors here. They were Germany and France. Also strong countries. There were observers from all European countries in the mission. But Russia renounced its commitments (guarantor), did not fulfill them," commented Butusov.

The former journalist also notes the point that proposes the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the part of the Donetsk region that is still controlled by Ukraine. The document proposes that the territory in question become a buffer zone, where there will be no Russian soldiers, but this territory will belong to the Russian Federation."For eight years, there have been no Russian troops in Ukraine, nor in the territories of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics. Russia said that it had no forces there. In fact, it had," Butusov commented.

However, he admitted that if developments on the front continue at the pace seen today, then Ukraine could lose Donbas one way or another – in a year or two. However, he said, this may not happen if Ukraine makes its defense more effective.

Butusov also paused on the penultimate point, which states that the implementation of the agreement will be guaranteed by a peace council headed by President Donald Trump. He reminded that Trump may not be president in three years, as in November 2028, American voters will again decide who will lead the country.

The analyst sees a paradox

Russian analyst Tatiana Stanovaya writes on the social network X that from her perspective, the published plan reflects most of Vladimir Putin's demands so far, but - from Russia's perspective - it contains two main problems.

According to her, the text itself reveals a dismissive and inaccurate understanding of how Moscow formulates its positions, and also, although it makes significant concessions to Russia, the plan requires Moscow to abandon some of its previous conditions. This can be seen, for example, in the case of the demand for the reduction of the Ukrainian armed forces. Let us recall that at the beginning of the invasion, the Kremlin demanded that the Ukrainian army be reduced to 85,000 members.

“The wording itself could pose a problem for Moscow, as it reflects what Russia would perceive as unsubstantiated promises – requiring extensive commitments from the West (NATO) – and could therefore be interpreted as ‘a bird in the sky’. I am not saying that Putin would reject the plan outright, but he would almost certainly insist on careful work on the wording and a detailed written form for each commitment,” writes the Russia expert.

According to her, the peace plan on which the Americans collaborated with the Russians creates a paradox - Moscow got most of what it wanted, but now has to take seriously something that it itself will likely consider unfounded and unreliable.

Putin can't stand being controlled.

Former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev also points out that while the draft plan shows that it is clearly in Russia's favor and the Russian president could see it as his victory, the document also contains things that the Kremlin will not agree with.

"At least $100 billion of Russia's frozen assets would be redirected under American supervision to reconstruction projects in Ukraine. It is hard to imagine that President Vladimir Putin would welcome the idea of financing the reconstruction of a country he devastated, and even under American supervision," he wrote in a commentary for the Moscow Times.

However, according to him, this is not the most sensitive point for Russia.

For example, he points to a point that says that peace between Russia and Ukraine should be overseen by a peace council headed by Trump. According to Bondarev, this point is absolutely unacceptable to Putin because it puts Trump in a dominant position - the position of someone who oversees and evaluates the actions of the Russian leader.

“Putin is waging war to prove that he has an equal right to shape global decisions alongside the US president and other world leaders. He is fighting for an imaginary respect, for a status of equality – or even primacy – among global actors. In this worldview, elevating anyone above himself, especially someone as unpredictable as Trump, would be humiliating and a sign of weakness,” notes the former diplomat, who left the diplomatic service in 2022 in protest against the invasion.

Lasting peace or time for rest?

Analysts from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) for a change write that they do not see any provisions in the published document where it would be clear that Russia is making concessions.

They conclude that accepting Russia's demands would not bring lasting peace, but rather see the conditions for a renewal of Russian aggression, this time with a rested and renewed army at a time of the Russians' own choosing, and on battle lines in Ukraine that would significantly favor the Russians.

In this case, it is mainly their demand to withdraw the Ukrainian army from the defense belt near Kramatorsk and Sloviansk and create a buffer zone there. According to ISW, the Russians would probably be able to launch renewed pressure in the southern part of the Kharkiv region or the eastern part of the Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

In this context, an argument is being raised in Ukraine as to why the Russian army is today, for example, trying to capture the city of Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region or advance across the Dnipropetrovsk region, if the submitted document includes a point that Moscow will give up the territory it controls outside of five regions (the five regions mean: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, the occupied part of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions).

According to analysts, many of the proposals from the 28-point plan practically copy the Kremlin's demands from the negotiations in Istanbul in the spring of 2022. However, the ISW Institute recalls that the situation on the battlefield has changed significantly in recent years compared to the beginning of the invasion, forcing Moscow to resort to harsh attacks at a rapid pace so that its army can achieve at least marginal tactical progress.

In recent weeks, it has been exerting crushing pressure on the cities of Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad, and Kostyantynivka in the Donetsk region. It is also moving towards the city of Hulyapole in the Zaporizhia region.