Image Credit: Hu Yousong/Xinhua via Getty Images 
President Donald Trump has triggered renewed international debate over possible diplomatic solutions to the war in Ukraine with the presentation of a comprehensive 28-point peace plan.
The proposal calls for a permanently neutral Ukraine, new security guarantees, clearly defined territorial arrangements and far-reaching economic reconstruction programs.
A comparative analysis shows that many of the core elements in Trump’s plan closely mirror those found in a peace initiative submitted in 2023 by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, drafted under the leadership of the party’s foreign policy spokesman, Petr Bystron.
Shared Strategic Premise: No Military Solution
Both concepts are built on an almost identical strategic assumption: the war cannot be resolved militarily and therefore requires a fundamental reconfiguration of the security architecture.
Trump’s proposal, like the AfD document, calls for strict and permanent Ukrainian neutrality, rules out NATO membership and prohibits the stationing of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory. Both plans also provide for international security guarantees, controlled disengagement of forces along the front lines, and the implementation of a comprehensive ceasefire.
Converging Approaches to Contested Territories
There are also clear structural parallels in how both proposals address disputed regions. Each plan assumes that a full Ukrainian reconquest of all currently occupied territories is unrealistic.
While Trump outlines specific territorial assignments, the AfD initiative calls for internationally supervised transitional mandates and later bilateral negotiations — yet both approaches rely on the same underlying logic of stabilization through de-escalation, monitoring and phased implementation.
Both plans emphasize political restraint, international oversight and gradual reconstruction.
Key Differences in Tone and Scope
Analysts note, however, that the AfD plan is framed in a distinctly European diplomatic tone and is considerably more moderate toward Ukraine than the U.S. proposal.
Unlike Trump’s plan, the AfD initiative does not call for immediate recognition of Russian-controlled territories. Instead, it proposes long-term negotiations over Crimea and Sevastopol and suggests placing four contested regions under temporary U.N. or OSCE mandates.
The AfD document also refrains from imposing limits on Ukraine’s armed forces or prescribing internal political arrangements — elements that feature prominently in Trump’s draft.
Bystron’s Critique of Berlin’s Approach
Reflecting on Berlin’s refusal to support the proposal, Bystron argued:
“The German government preferred to sink 40 billion euros of German taxpayers’ money into Ukraine rather than join our plan. Meanwhile, Ukrainian politicians wallowed in stacks of cash and showed off golden toilets, while hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians died miserable deaths on the battlefield. All of this could have been avoided.”
Convergence Without Coordination
Despite differences in detail, experts point out substantial alignment in the overall direction of the two proposals: permanent neutrality, prevention of further NATO expansion, de-escalation through external security guarantees, controlled stabilization of contested areas and internationally supported reconstruction efforts represent the central pillars of both envisioned peace processes.
The result raises an unavoidable question — if two fundamentally different political actors independently reach similar conclusions, how long can Europe continue insisting there is no alternative to the current course?
