The 28-Point “Peace Plan” for Ukraine Is Illegal. Here’s the Full Legal Breakdown.

A Point-by-Point Legal Review

A leaked 28-point document — reportedly drafted by Russia and United States — proposes a sweeping “peace plan” for Ukraine that would permanently alter borders, rewrite Ukraine’s Constitution, restrict its armed forces, grant Russia territorial gains, and impose political, economic, and legal restraints on Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Below is a detailed legal analysis explaining why this plan violates core treaties and fundamental rules of international law.

I. OVERARCHING LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Before going point-by-point, these are the binding principles that Russia’s plan directly violates:

1. UN Charter

• Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

• Article 1: Peaceful relations must be based on “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

2. Helsinki Final Act (OSCE)

• Principle I: “Sovereign equality… and the right to choose and change their security arrangements.”

• Principle III: “The inviolability of frontiers.”

• Principle IV: “Territorial integrity of States.”

3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

• Article 52: A treaty is void if obtained by coercion: “The expression of a state’s consent… procured by the threat or use of force… shall be without legal effect.”

4. Rome Statute

• Aggression includes: “invasion,” “annexation,” and “occupation” (Article 8 bis).

5. International Human Rights Law

States may not limit:

• civil rights,

• political participation,

• media freedom,

• elections,

• or impose discriminatory policies.

Several points of the Russian document violate these.

II. POINT-BY-POINT LEGAL ANALYSIS

Below is the analysis for each item.

1. “Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.”

Violation: It is contradicted by 20+ clauses that strip sovereignty.

UN Charter Article 2(1): Sovereignty must be full — not conditional.

2. “Non-aggression agreement… ambiguities resolved.”

Non-aggression agreements are legal, unless obtained under force, which renders them invalid:

Vienna Convention Art. 52.

3. “Russia will not invade neighboring countries, and NATO will not expand further.”

Violations:

• Helsinki Final Act, Principle I: States may choose alliances “as they deem fit.”

• UN Charter: No state may dictate another’s alliances.

Forcing NATO to halt enlargement is illegal coercion toward third states.

4. U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue

Legal in theory — unlawful if made a condition of ending aggression, violating Art. 52 (coercion).

5. “Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.”

Not unlawful on its own — unlawful because the plan restricts Ukraine militarily and constitutionally, violating sovereignty.

6. “Ukraine’s Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000.”

Violations:

• UN Charter Article 51: “Nothing… shall impair the inherent right of self-defense.”

• Limiting troop levels under threat constitutes coercion → Vienna Convention Article 52.

7. “Ukraine will enshrine in its Constitution that it will not join NATO… NATO will adopt a provision stating Ukraine will not be admitted.”

Violations:

• Helsinki: Principle I — right to choose security arrangements.

• UN Charter: self-determination.

• Vienna Convention Art. 51–52 — constitutional changes cannot be forced by an aggressor.

8. “NATO will not deploy its troops in Ukraine.”

Dictating military arrangements of another state → violates sovereign equality (Helsinki I).

9. “European NATO forces will be stationed in Poland.”

Forcing Poland to host troops violates Poland’s sovereignty and Helsinki I.

10. U.S. security guarantees with political conditions

Legal only if voluntary — but imposed during war → invalid under Vienna Art. 52.

11. “Ukraine may apply for EU membership.”

Legal, but meaningless when paired with constitutional coercion.

12. “Global reconstruction package”

Reconstruction itself is legal — but using reconstruction funds to pressure political concessions is coercive → Vienna Art. 52.

13. “Russia will be reintegrated… sanctions relief discussed… U.S.–Russia economic agreement… return to G8.”

Sanctions may be lifted, but conditional on illegal territorial concessions = coercive bargaining with stolen territory, contrary to:

• UN Charter Article 2(4)

• UNGA resolutions on non-recognition of annexation

14. Frozen Russian assets restructured

Using frozen assets is lawful only if not tied to political coercion.

Here, assets are exchanged for territorial recognition, violating:

• UN Charter Article 2(4)

• Peremptory norms (jus cogens) against annexation.

15. Joint U.S.–Ukraine–Russia working group on security issues

Not illegal itself — but illegal if imposed.

16. “Russia will legally adopt a policy of non-aggression.”

Russia is already obligated under: UN Charter Art. 2(4). This clause is redundant and used as leverage → coercion.

17. Nuclear treaty extensions

Legal.

18. “Ukraine will remain a non-nuclear state.”

Already required under NPT — not the issue.

19. “Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted… electricity divided 50/50 between Russia and Ukraine.”

Violations:

• Nuclear facility in occupied territory → illegal appropriation (Geneva Conventions).

• Forcing Ukraine to share electricity with an occupying power → Rome Statute Article 8 (pillaging).

• Violates IAEA safeguards requiring control by the legitimate sovereign state.

20. Educational and media measures

Violations:

• Imposing ideology controls violates Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 19) — freedom of expression.

• “Nazi ideology banned” is legal in itself — but bundled with forced “equal access for Russian media,” which is coercive and manipulative.

21. TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS (most unlawful section)

21a. “Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk recognized de facto as Russian… by the United States.”

Direct Violations:

• UN Charter Article 2(4) — prohibits acquisition of territory by force.

• UNGA Resolution 3314: Annexation by force = act of aggression.

• Rome Statute Art. 8 bis: annexation = crime of aggression.

• Helsinki III & IV — frontiers cannot be altered “by threat or use of force.”

Non-recognition rule:

• UNGA Resolution 2625 (Friendly Relations): States are obligated not to recognize territorial changes imposed by aggression.

21b–d. Freezing lines, demilitarized zones, Ukrainian withdrawals, recognition of Russian-controlled regions

All violate the same foundational principles:

• prohibition on annexation,

• prohibition on coercion,

• sovereign equality.

Any “agreement” forcing Ukraine to surrender territory is void under Vienna Art. 52.

22. “Future territorial arrangements cannot be changed by force.”

Hypocrisy: the plan itself changes territory by force.

23. “Russia will not obstruct commercial use of the Dnipro… free grain shipments.”

Occupation of riverbanks violates sovereignty; granting “permissions” is colonial and illegal.

24. Humanitarian committee (“all for all,” hostages returned, family reunification).

Legal in itself — but irrelevant when tied to territorial concessions.

Forcing hostage release in exchange for land = hostage-taking (GC IV).

25. “Ukraine will hold elections within 100 days.”

Violations:

• Forcing elections under occupation violates ICCPR Article 25 — right to free and fair elections.

• Conducting elections during war in occupied territory is illegal.

26. “Full amnesty for wartime actions — no claims or grievances.”

Direct Violations:

• Rome Statute: War crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression cannot be amnestied.

• Geneva Conventions: No amnesty for grave breaches.

This clause is legally impossible.

27. “Agreement will be binding, monitored by a Peace Council chaired by Donald J. Trump.”

No issue with an oversight body — but an agreement made under coercion is void.

28. Ceasefire takes effect after withdrawals

Legal if voluntary. Not legal if conditioned on territorial surrender.

III. WHY THE PLAN IS VOID UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Obtained under coercion (Vienna Convention Art. 52)

Ukraine is being forced to concede territory while under invasion.

2. Violates the peremptory norm (jus cogens) against annexation

No treaty can override this.

3. Violates the UN Charter

Especially Article 2(4).

4. Violates the OSCE / Helsinki Final Act

Frontiers are inviolable.

5. Violates human rights law

Forced elections, amnesties, media control, and ideological demands.

6. Violates international criminal law

Amnesty for war crimes cannot be granted.

IV. What Would It Mean for Any Country to Endorse or Sign This Plan?

Endorsing or signing this plan would mean that the endorsing country is:

1. Violating the UN Charter

Recognizing illegal annexation is itself a violation.

2. Participating in coercion of a sovereign state

Treaty coercion is invalid and itself unlawful.

3. Undermining the rule of law and international order

It creates a precedent allowing aggressive states to:

• invade neighbors,

• annex territory,

• force constitutional changes,

• escape accountability.

4. Encouraging future wars

If territorial conquest is rewarded, international stability collapses.

5. Complicit in shielding war crimes

Supporting blanket amnesty = assisting in impunity — a violation of the Rome Statute.

6. Violating OSCE/Helsinki commitments

Endorsing forced border changes breaches Europe’s foundational security principles.

BOTTOM LINE

This 28-point plan is not a “peace proposal.”

It is a legally void attempt to force Ukraine to surrender sovereignty, territory, constitutional rights, military capacity, human rights, and the rule of law — all under continued Russian occupation and threat.

Any country endorsing it would be endorsing illegal annexation, coercive diplomacy, and the dismantling of the post-WWII rules-based order.