Lavrov: In Alaska, Trump agreed that Ukraine must cede four regions to Russia

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 11, 2025

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively rejected seven points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan on December 11, including the original plan’s points on territorial swaps based on the line of contact and the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine. Lavrov effectively rejected the following provisions:

• Freezing the current line of contact in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts;
• Restarting the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rather than Russia;
• Requiring NATO only to cease further enlargement rather than insisting on rolling NATO back to its pre-1997 borders;
• Permitting European fighter jets to be stationed in Poland;
• Providing reliable security guarantees to Ukraine;
• Confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty; and
• Accepting EU regulations on the protection of religious minorities as the required basis for Ukrainian laws on the subject.

Lavrov stated that the Russian Constitution recognized illegally annexed Crimea and Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as “integral and equal subjects of the Russian Federation” and implied that Russia cannot give away territories enshrined in its constitution.[1] Lavrov also claimed that Russia and the United States reached an understanding at the Alaska Summit on August 15 based on the proposals that summarized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 14, 2024, speech — in which Putin demanded complete Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as one of the prerequisites for peace negotiations.[2] Lavrov’s reiteration of the Russian demand for Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts contradicts the 21st point of the original peace plan, which states that Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts will be frozen along the line of contact and that both Ukraine and Russia would de facto recognize the line of contact.[3] Russia’s commitment to establishing full control of Zaporizhia Oblast also contradicts the 19th point of the original peace plan, which states that the ZNPP would restart its operations under the IAEA and would equally distribute electricity between Russia and Ukraine.

Lavrov effectively rejected the third, fifth, and ninth points of the original peace plan, which respectively required only that NATO would not expand further, that European jets would be stationed in Poland, and that Ukraine would receive “reliable” security guarantees.[4] Lavrov stated that Russia “cannot agree” to any security guarantees for Ukraine that it would see as preparations for “another attack” against Russia and demanded that Russia receive security guarantees. Lavrov threatened that Russia would deem any “peacekeepers” in Ukraine “legitimate military targets,” effectively ruling out any meaningful Western security guarantees that could plausibly deter or defend against a Russian reinvasion of Ukraine as provided for under the fifth point. Point 8 of the 28-point plan reads: “NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine,” but there is no discussion of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. The 28-point plan did not preclude the deployment of forces from individual NATO member states as part of a security guarantee force. The Russians’ choosing to read that point as precluding the deployment of forces to guarantee the security of Ukraine would constitute a revision of the plan and would render any security guarantee toothless.

Lavrov proposed the December 2021 ultimatums to the United States and NATO as the basis for security guarantees for Russia. The 2021 ultimatums notably demanded “security guarantees” from the United States and NATO that amounted to the destruction of the current NATO alliance — such as halting the deployment of forces or weapons systems to member-states that joined NATO after 1997.[5] The Kremlin also demanded in January 2022 (as part of the extended negotiations on the 2021 suite of demands) that NATO roll back to the borders it had in 1997 borders when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.[6] Lavrov thus effectively insisted on a rollback of NATO forces rather than the freeze on further NATO expansion included in the 28 points. An agreement based on the 2021 ultimatums would preclude the deployment of European fighter jets to Poland as well, since Poland joined NATO after 1997.

Lavrov also effectively rejected the 1st point of the original peace plan, which would confirm Ukraine’s sovereignty.[7] Lavrov reiterated Russia’s demand that Ukraine “must return to a non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear status” and that these principles are the “foundation of its statehood.” Lavrov claimed that Russia’s original recognition of Ukraine in 1990 was conditional on Ukraine’s neutral and non-aligned status. He made clear that Russian recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty would be permanently conditional on Ukraine’s foreign policy.

Lavrov rejected the 20th point of the original peace plan, which would accept Ukraine’s adoption of “EU rules” on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities as sufficient to address Russia’s claimed concerns on the matter.[8] Lavrov explicitly stated that it is “unacceptable” for the 20th point to limit Ukraine’s obligations to just “EU rules” and that the “EU rules” on religious tolerance and protection of minorities are insufficient. Lavrov falsely implied on December 10 that the original 28-point peace plan did not feature the clause on “EU rules.”[9]

Lavrov’s December 11 statements indicate that the Kremlin is unwilling to accept the original 28-point peace plan but that Russia will instead demand further modifications should Ukraine agree to it. Lavrov’s effective rejection of key elements of the 28-point peace plan is consistent with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s November 27 statement that the 28-point plan could be the basis for future negotiations, but not a final agreement in itself.[10]

Senior Kremlin officials, including Putin, have similarly rejected key points of the 28-point plan in recent weeks. The Kremlin signaled that it would not be satisfied with Ukraine holding elections in 100 days after the signing of the deal, as specified by the 25th point of the original peace plan. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, and other lower-level Kremlin officials responded negatively on December 9 to Zelensky’s expressed willingness to hold elections as early as the next 60 to 90 days.[11] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated on November 26 that “there can be no talk of any concessions or any surrender” of the “key aspects” of Russia’s objectives in Ukraine in response to the US peace plan.[12] Ryabkov stated Russia “is prepared to achieve its stated goals” in negotiations — referring to Russia’s long-held and oft-repeated demands, including demands that Russia gain control over all of Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts and force the Ukrainian government to capitulate — and noted that Russia will continue its war in Ukraine if there are “any setbacks” in negotiations.[13] Lavrov and lower-level Russian State Duma officials notably began setting informational conditions to reject reliable security guarantees for Ukraine on December 10, with Lavrov threatening Russian retaliation against the deployment of European military contingents to Ukraine.[14] The Kremlin’s position on peace negotiations and territorial swaps has not changed in 2025, with Putin stating in March 2025 that Russia does not intend to “give in to anyone” or “give” up illegally annexed territories.[15]

Russian State Duma deputies, whom the Kremlin uses to shape Russian public opinion, also made clear that Russia remains disinterested in signing any peace agreements, including the original 28-point peace plan. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik claimed on December 11 that he had not yet seen a single peace plan that “would be in line with [Russia’s] interests” and denounced any plans that involve freezing the frontline along the line of contact.[16] State Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlyov stated on Russian state television on December 11 that any peace agreement that Russia signs will not guarantee “anything;” that physical force is more authoritative than law; and that Russia’s goal in Ukraine were not confined to seizing Donbas but was rather to ensure “global security” — likely a nod to the Russian 2021 demands for “security guarantees” for Russia from the United States and NATO.[17]..."