Featured Post from Cedarville University

A Roadmap or a Rift? Examining Trump’s 28-Point Ukraine Peace Proposal

Cedarville's Glen Duerr is available to help if you're covering

Dec 3, 2025

3 min

As negotiations around the war in Ukraine continue to dominate global headlines, a newly surfaced 28-point peace proposal associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump has triggered intense debate across NATO capitals, Kyiv, and Moscow. The document — described in reporting by Reuters, Axios, Sky News, Al Jazeera and other outlets — outlines a framework aimed at ending the conflict but includes provisions that many analysts say could significantly reshape Europe’s security landscape.

A Plan Built Around Ceasefire, Guarantees, and Reconstruction

At its core, the plan calls for a formal ceasefire, a non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine, and European states, and a set of “security guarantees” meant to deter future conflict. Reporting indicates that Ukraine would receive assurances that any renewed Russian offensive would trigger a coordinated international response. The plan also proposes the creation of a major reconstruction program — potentially financed in part with frozen Russian assets — to rebuild infrastructure and modernize Ukraine’s economy.

The proposal references pathways for deeper Ukrainian integration with Europe, including support for progressing toward EU membership and providing enhanced access to European markets. A large “Ukraine Development Fund” is also mentioned in multiple summaries of the plan.

Provisions Driving the Most Global Pushback

The most controversial elements relate to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and long-term security posture. Outlets such as Sky News and Al Jazeera report that the draft would recognize Russian control over Crimea and large parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — areas currently occupied by Russian forces. Ukraine would also be required to formally abandon NATO membership and cap its military at 600,000 personnel.

Additional provisions include restrictions on the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine, phased lifting of sanctions on Russia, full amnesty for war-related actions, and the reintegration of Russia into global economic and political structures. These components have drawn sharp responses, particularly from European leaders who argue the plan could reward aggression and undermine international legal norms.

Dr. Glen Duerr is a citizen of three countries. He was born in the United Kingdom, moved to Canada as a teenager, and then to the United States to obtain his Ph.D. His teaching and research interests include nationalism and secession, comparative politics, international relations theory, sports and politics, and Christianity and politics.

View his profile.

What Remains Unclear or Still Under Discussion

Reporting from Reuters and AP notes that many sections of the plan remain undefined or are still in flux. The exact mechanism behind the proposed security guarantees is not detailed. Oversight of reconstruction funds, timelines for reintegration of Russia, and the legal handling of frozen assets also require further clarification. Some reporting suggests parts of the plan draw from a prior informal Russian “non-paper,” raising questions about the provenance and intent of specific provisions.

Why the Proposal Matters

With the war approaching four years of fighting, any formal proposal for ending hostilities carries significant geopolitical weight. Supporters of the plan frame it as a pragmatic attempt to halt loss of life and begin rebuilding. Critics argue it risks legitimizing territorial conquest and weakening the broader post-Cold-War security order.

As governments evaluate the implications, journalists covering defense, diplomacy, and international law will find this evolving proposal central to understanding where U.S., European, Russian, and Ukrainian negotiators may — or may not — be willing to go next.

Connect with:

Glen Duerr, Ph.D.

Professor of International Studies

Dr. Deurr's research interests include nationalism and secession, comparative politics, and international relations theory

International TerrorismDomestic TerrorismInternational RelationsBrexit

Find Experts

Sep 25, 2026

2 min

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics

The rapid expansion of legal sports betting has created a particularly complicated issue for college athletics: wagers based on the performance of individual student-athletes. Indiana became the latest state to confront that issue Thursday when regulators rejected an NCAA request to ban pregame college-player proposition bets. These wagers allow bettors to predict individual outcomes—such as how many points a basketball player will score or how many passing yards a quarterback will record. The NCAA has increasingly targeted these bets, citing concerns about athlete harassment, access to inside information and the potential manipulation of individual performances. Indiana regulators ultimately chose to preserve the state’s current rules, which permit certain pregame college-player props while prohibiting them once a game is underway. Sports-betting operators maintain that legal sportsbooks can monitor unusual betting patterns and alert regulators to suspicious activity, an oversight mechanism that does not exist in illegal or offshore markets. The NCAA takes a different view, arguing that attaching money directly to an individual college athlete’s statistics creates risks that are difficult to eliminate through monitoring alone. Several states have already restricted or prohibited these wagers, leaving the country with an increasingly uneven regulatory landscape. Indiana’s decision puts a larger question about the future of legalized sports betting into focus. College athletes now compete in an environment where thousands of people may have money riding on their individual performance, even when the athletes themselves receive none of the wager. Are existing safeguards enough to protect athletes and the integrity of competition? Should college sports be treated differently from professional leagues when regulators decide what people can bet on? And if states adopt different answers, how effective can any single state’s restrictions ultimately be?

Sep 28, 2026

1 min

Congress Buys Time: Shutdown Fight Pushed to December

When will Congress stop kicking the budget proverbial can down the road with a continuing resolution and begin addressing the issue of leading with a balanced budget? Having a balanced budget, and spending within our means should be expected of our legislators--but for decades, this has not been the case. Lawmakers from both political parties are guitly of not addressing the issue that has created several 11th-hour deals regarding the budget. While this strategy helps keep some legislators in power, it's providing no benefit to the American people. Congress has now opted to not work on this issue until December--if it even does it then. However, the deadline buys our political leaders time to get past the midterm elections, campaign for each other, and hope the American public doesn't notice. And, in doing so, we'll experience another government shutdown in December.

Sep 18, 2026

2 min

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs Rising oil prices are often felt first at the gas pump, but their effects can quickly extend to the broader economy. As higher costs for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel work their way through transportation, manufacturing and food production, investors are increasingly concerned that inflation could remain elevated longer than expected. That concern is helping push Treasury yields higher. When investors expect inflation to erode the future value of fixed-income returns, they typically demand higher yields on government bonds. The result can be a ripple effect across the economy: mortgage rates, auto loans, credit-card rates and business borrowing costs may all remain high or move higher. This is an important second stage of the oil-price story. The first concern is the direct impact on consumers and businesses as energy costs rise. The next concern is whether those higher costs become embedded in the economy, causing inflation expectations to increase and making it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to ease interest rates. For policymakers, the dilemma is clear. Raising or maintaining higher interest rates can help slow inflation, but it also makes borrowing more expensive for families, businesses and the federal government. If high energy prices persist, the Federal Reserve may face added pressure to prioritize inflation control even as consumers and employers feel the effects of tighter financial conditions. The issue is also global. Oil markets respond quickly to geopolitical instability and supply disruptions, while Treasury yields influence borrowing and investment decisions far beyond the United States. Together, high energy prices and rising yields can become a powerful test of economic resilience—affecting household budgets today and financial decisions for months to come.