Zelenskyy’s 10-Points vs. the Potemkin Peace Plans: A Comparative Analysis of Peace Proposals for Ukraine
Authors: Katie Hetherington, Sindija Beta, and Dr. Paul R. Williams
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has sparked a range of proposals aimed at achieving a durable and comprehensive end to the war. These proposals vary widely in merit and legitimacy. Among them, Ukraine's Peace Formula, publicly introduced in 2022, stands out as a framework firmly rooted in international law and designed to address the interests of both Ukraine and the broader international community.
Other proposals, such as the African Peace Mission’s Proposal, China’s 12-Point Plan, and the Brazil-China Peace Proposal, have also been put forward. However, these efforts are largely fragmented and driven by self-interested diplomacy. While claiming neutrality, they often avoid key legal and geopolitical issues and instead reflect the strategic priorities and interests of their authors.
Peace in Ukraine must be pursued within the framework of a rules-based international order. This requires adherence to fundamental and non-negotiable principles such as territorial integrity, justice, and accountability. Genuine peace cannot be achieved through potemkin peace plans: superficial or self-serving proposals that sidestep these core values. Instead, the path forward demands a steadfast commitment to sovereignty, the rule of law, and a vision of justice that serves not only Ukraine but the global community.
Ukraine's Peace Formula
Ukraine’s Peace Formula was first introduced by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in October 2022 to the Group of Seven (G7) leaders and later published on official Ukrainian government platforms. Of the available proposals, the peace formula is most consistent with international law. It addresses critical issues required for any genuine negotiation to end Russia's aggression, including the non-negotiable principle of territorial integrity, security concerns such as food and energy security, compensation for war damages, and accountability for crimes committed during the conflict. The formula takes into account the broader interests of the international community, particularly those of Global South nations heavily impacted by disruptions to global supply chains. As a result, it is a solid blueprint for a durable, legitimate, and legally sound peace.
The restoration of territorial integrity and the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory are central to the Peace Formula. It also calls for the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian nuclear plants, the transfer of control to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and strongly condemns Russian nuclear blackmail. The formula emphasizes the need for robust security guarantees to prevent both immediate and future aggression. While the formula has not been formally amended since its publication, Ukraine’s position on when the issue of territorial integrity must be resolved might be shifting: President Zelensky has made recent remarks regarding the possibility of negotiating outstanding territorial issues with Russia at a later date, in return for NATO membership and security guarantees now. These remarks do not, however, negate Ukraine’s demands for the return of the Occupied Territories, nor the fact that Russia’s aggression is strictly prohibited under international law, including Article 2 of the UN Charter.
The Peace Formula also tackles the humanitarian impacts of Russia’s war, focusing on Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure, environmental protection, and the return of prisoners of war. It highlights the need for accountability for the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children and adults, emphasizing their immediate return, and advocates for an “all for all” exchange of prisoners of war. Additionally, the formula addresses the global repercussions of food and energy insecurity by proposing price restrictions on Russian energy exports and restoring grain exports to stabilize global markets and mitigate the adverse effects of global food shortages.
On justice and accountability, the formula demands the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes. Although it does not extensively discuss post-conflict reconstruction, it highlights the need for an international mechanism by which Russia will compensate Ukraine for war damages.
As affirmed by legal analyses, including PILPG’s, the peace formula is deeply rooted in international law. It is premised on fostering international cooperation to implement a vision of peace that extends beyond Ukraine to benefit the global community.
The African Peace Mission’s Proposal
The African Peace Mission’s Proposal, introduced in the summer of 2023 by a delegation from Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Egypt, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, and South Africa, offered a broad framework for resolving the conflict. While the specifics were never formally disclosed, South Africa’s President Ramaphosa outlined a 10-step peace plan addressing issues such as state sovereignty, security, the protection of global supply chains, humanitarian concerns, and reconstruction. However, the proposal lacked concrete details on how these measures would be implemented.
The proposal highlights African states’ commitment to diplomacy and their desire to play a significant role in maintaining international peace and stability. However, it falls short as a viable blueprint for peace. It avoids explicitly acknowledging the illegality of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and remains silent on critical issues such as territorial integrity and accountability for war crimes. Ultimately, the proposal reflects a cautious foreign policy stance and, in some cases, the Russia-leaning positions of certain states aiming to influence the resolution of the conflict.
China’s “Political Settlement”
China’s 12-point plan, released in February 2023, aims to portray China as a neutral mediator. However, it is less a comprehensive proposal to end the war and more a self-serving framework for facilitating dialogue and advancing a political settlement aligned with China’s strategic interests.
The plan calls for moving away from “Cold-War mentality” military blocs and bloc confrontation, echoing language often found in Russian narratives about the perceived threats of military alliances. It opposes unilateral sanctions and their perceived misuse while advocating for the protection of global supply chains. Notably, the plan reflects China’s strategic concerns, particularly its stance on Taiwan and territorial integrity. It outlines a normative and legal framework that China could potentially invoke if it were to take action against Taiwan, revealing its apprehension about potential international military and economic responses to such a scenario.
The plan shares some common ground with Ukraine’s Peace Formula. It calls for measures to de-escalate hostilities, protect civilians and prisoners of war, and ensure the stability of global supply chains. It explicitly advocates for international support for post-conflict reconstruction and offers China’s assistance. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding nuclear facilities, supporting the role of the IAEA, and opposing the use or threat of nuclear weapons.
However, the proposal notably fails to address critical issues such as territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, security guarantees for Ukraine, or accountability for war crimes. Its language carefully avoids acknowledging Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory, simply stating that the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all states must be respected. Additionally, it refrains from labeling Russia’s actions as a war, instead referring to the conflict as the “Ukraine crisis.”
Indeed, in September 2024, a paper drafted by the Ukrainian government and circulated amongst diplomats at the September UNGA meeting in New York claimed that China was also pursuing international backing for an end-the-war strategy which would freeze current territorial demarcations. This only underscores China’s reluctance to support a just resolution based on Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Given China’s close ties with Russia, the proposal is best characterized as Russian-leaning.
The Brazil-China “Common Understandings”
The Brazil-China Peace Proposal, introduced in May 2024, offers little progress beyond the framework of China’s 2023 plan. It focuses on a set of “common understandings” and calls for direct dialogue but fails to address several critical issues essential for achieving a durable resolution to Russia’s war.
The proposal echoes familiar themes, including opposition to bloc dynamics and nuclear escalation, advocacy for stable global supply chains, and calls for humanitarian assistance. However, it strays even further from the principle of territorial integrity, omitting any reference to Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory, its broader aggression, or the fundamental obligation to uphold state sovereignty under international law.
Brazil’s stance in this proposal is clearly influenced by its membership in BRICS, which includes Russia. The economic and geopolitical interests of both Brazil and China are evident, suggesting that their approach is driven more by self-interest than by a genuine commitment to justice or international law.
Russia’s Position
Unlike the formal written proposals outlined above, Russia has not published an official peace plan of its own. Instead, its position on peace is conveyed through public statements by Russian officials and its actions on the ground in Ukraine. Russia’s prerequisites for peace remain centered on Ukrainian neutrality and the recognition of its territorial claims over Crimea and Donbas.
President Putin has insisted that meaningful negotiations with Ukraine cannot commence while—according to his narrative—Ukraine indiscriminately attacks civilian populations and infrastructure. While Russia has expressed openness to a ceasefire, this is contingent on terms that overwhelmingly serve its interests, including Ukraine’s withdrawal from the territories illegally occupied by Russia, and the abandonment of efforts to join NATO. Russia’s position centers on maintaining control over significant portions of Ukraine, including the strategically significant Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
While Russia has participated in several exchanges of prisoners of war, it frames these actions as part of its broader narrative of protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Its approach to humanitarian issues remains starkly contradictory: Russia continues to target civilian infrastructure, including Ukraine’s energy systems, with the intent of disrupting daily life and undermining Ukraine’s resilience, particularly during the winter months.
Regarding global energy security, Russia wields its energy exports as a geopolitical weapon, manipulating supplies to exert pressure on European and global markets. While it initially engaged in grain export negotiations as part of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, it withdrew from the agreement in 2023, escalating attacks on Ukrainian ports and civilian shipping vessels.
Russia categorically rejects accountability for war crimes, dismissing such accusations as politically motivated. It also refuses to consider reparations for damages caused by the war. Moreover, Russia has consistently opposed the use of frozen assets for reconstruction and, in May 2024, authorized compensation for its seized frozen assets by targeting U.S. assets within Russia.
Finally, while Russia has expressed nominal support for multilateral peace talks, it vehemently opposes any dominant role for Western-led blocs in such negotiations. Russia frames the conflict as part of a broader struggle against Western hegemony.
Conclusion
In the search for peace in Ukraine, not all proposals are created equal. Ukraine’s Peace Formula provides a robust framework for future peace that is grounded in international law and principles of justice. In contrast, many other proposals amount to little more than diplomatic posturing, shaped by the priorities and alliances of their authors.
Any path to lasting peace must prioritize territorial integrity, accountability for aggression and war crimes, and comprehensive security guarantees to prevent future conflict. Smoke-and-mirrors proposals may claim neutrality, but true peace demands an unwavering commitment to justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law—principles that Ukraine’s Peace Formula upholds as a blueprint not only for the region but for a more secure and just international order.
