Russia’s Proposal Is Not Peace — It’s a Proposal for Legalized Surrender Demanded at Gunpoint
By: Sindija Beta, Dr. Paul R. Williams, and Kateryna Kyrychenko
When Russia put forward its latest “peace proposal” in Istanbul on June 2, 2025, it asked Ukraine to do the impossible: abandon its own rights and legitimize aggression.
Though framed as a diplomatic initiative, the proposal is not a peace plan—it is a legal and political ultimatum. It calls for Ukraine to forfeit its sovereignty, renounce its territorial integrity, and relinquish rights guaranteed by the UN Charter and customary international law. Acceptance of such terms would not only violate Ukraine’s legal and constitutional order; it would also deal a devastating blow to the international rule-of-law framework that—however fragile—continues to serve as a foundation for global stability and restraint in inter-state conduct.
Legalizing the Illegal: Recognition of Unlawful Annexation
Foremost among the proposal’s legally indefensible demands is the requirement for the international legal recognition of Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts, and parts of Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts —territories internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. This demand directly violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The prohibition on acquiring territory through the use of force is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). It is reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) on the “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,” which provides unequivocally that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. Accordingly, Russia's claim to these territories is legally null and void. For Ukraine to recognize such annexations would not only contravene its own rights but also contribute to the erosion of a foundational norm of international law.
Undermining State Sovereignty and the Right to Self-Defense
Russia's proposal further demands that Ukraine declare neutrality, renounce military alliances, ban the presence of foreign troops, and reduce the size and capability of its armed forces. These requirements are incompatible with sovereign equality, a principle enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, and with the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51. In fact, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act commits its signatories to respect each other’s sovereign freedom to choose alliances, which such a peace agreement would directly violate.
The UN Charter or any other international law instrument does not permit one state to dictate the security posture or foreign alliances of another. Every sovereign state has the right to independently determine its own defense policy, including the right to form or join collective security arrangements. Imposing limitations on Ukraine’s military alliances or capabilities—particularly while Russia maintains ongoing military aggression—would amount to a legally impermissible form of external coercion.
Erasing Responsibility: Undermining the Right to Reparation
The proposal seeks a blanket "mutual renunciation of claims regarding damages caused during hostilities." This is incompatible with the principle of state responsibility under international law. The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission and widely accepted as customary international law, establish that states responsible for internationally wrongful acts must make full reparation for the injury caused.
A waiver of claims, if agreed under coercive conditions or in a context where the responsible state (Russia) has not acknowledged or ceased its wrongful conduct, and has caused hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage, would be contrary to the fundamental legal obligation of reparation. Victim states cannot be legally compelled to relinquish such rights as a condition of peace.
Dictating Sovereignty: Breaching the Norm of Non-Intervention
The Russian proposal includes measures demanding constitutional, legislative, and political changes within Ukraine, including restrictions on political parties, mandated language laws, and imposed timelines for elections. Such stipulations are clear violations of the principle of non-intervention, a core tenet of international law as articulated in UN Charter Article 2(7), General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), and reaffirmed in Resolution 2625 (XXV).
States may not interfere, directly or indirectly, in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. This principle protects not only political and constitutional processes but also a state’s ability to determine its cultural, linguistic, and electoral frameworks.
Including the Lawful: Addressing Displacement Without Ending Its Cause
To its credit, one provision of the Russian proposal does align with international legal obligations: the call for resolving issues related to family reunification and displaced persons. Under international humanitarian and human rights law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention, states are obliged to facilitate the reunification of families separated by conflict and to ensure the protection and voluntary, safe, and dignified return of displaced persons.
Efforts to address these issues are essential components of any genuine peace process and reflect a basic humanitarian consensus. Yet even this otherwise constructive provision cannot be effectively implemented in isolation, without addressing the causes of displacement: namely, Russia’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Conclusion: Resisting the Normalization of Force-Based Settlements
The June 2 Russian proposal is incompatible with international law at multiple levels. It seeks to legitimize unlawful territorial conquest, extinguish a sovereign state’s right to self-defense, restrict its international agency, interfere in domestic matters, and preempt any legal accountability for the aggressor’s actions. Accepting such terms would not constitute peace—it would represent a serious erosion of the international legal order that states have come to rely upon to protect their national security.
A just and lasting peace cannot be built on ultimatums, territorial conquest, or coerced silence. It must be anchored in international law, the UN Charter, accountability for atrocity crimes, and respect for sovereign equality. If normalized, this approach would legitimize territorial aggression, undermining global conflict resolution norms and encouraging future violations of sovereignty under the guise of peace proposals. Until these foundational legal principles are honored, negotiations based on documents like the Russian proposal will remain not only unacceptable but unlawful.