Zelenskyy says peace proposals to end the war in Ukraine could be presented to Russia within days. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant background or countervailing facts that would help readers fully understand the positions or stakes.

1) "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says proposals being negotiated with U.S. officials for a peace deal... could be finalized within days" – The article does not explain what the main elements of the U.S.-authored peace plan are, beyond a brief mention of a 'free economic zone' and security guarantees. 2) "Putin wants all the areas in four key regions that his forces have seized, as well as the Crimean Peninsula, which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014, to be recognized as Russian territory." – The article does not specify which four regions are meant, nor does it briefly outline Russia’s stated legal or political justification, even to critically contextualize it. 3) "American officials on Monday said that there's consensus from Ukraine and Europe on about 90% of the U.S.-authored peace plan." – No detail is given on what the remaining 10% of disagreement entails, which is central to understanding the real distance between the parties.

4 suggestions

Briefly summarize the main components of the U.S.-authored peace plan (e.g., territorial arrangements, security guarantees, sanctions relief) so readers can assess why it might be acceptable or unacceptable to each side.

Specify which four regions Putin wants recognized as Russian territory (e.g., Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia) and note, in a concise way, both Russia’s stated rationale and the international legal position.

Clarify what issues make up the remaining 10% of disagreement on the peace plan (e.g., status of occupied territories, timelines, verification mechanisms) to show the substantive gaps rather than just the headline figure.

Add one or two sentences of neutral background on previous failed peace efforts or ceasefire attempts to contextualize why current talks are significant or fragile.

Biased language / Framing effect

Using wording or framing that subtly favors one side’s narrative or makes one side’s position appear more legitimate or reasonable.

1) "U.S-led peace efforts appear to be picking up momentum." – The phrase "appear to be picking up momentum" is an interpretive framing without explicit sourcing or evidence beyond later quotes; it subtly portrays U.S. efforts as dynamic and effective. 2) "which Moscow illegally annexed in 2014" – While this reflects the prevailing international legal view (Crimea’s annexation is widely considered illegal under international law), the article states it as a flat assertion without attribution (e.g., "widely regarded under international law as illegal"), which can blur the line between reporting and editorial voice. 3) "But Russian President Vladimir Putin may balk at some of the proposals" – The verb "balk" carries a mildly negative connotation, implying unreasonable resistance, and is not clearly attributed to a source or analysis.

4 suggestions

Attribute evaluative or interpretive statements to specific sources or clearly mark them as analysis, e.g., "According to U.S. and European officials, U.S.-led peace efforts appear to be picking up momentum" or "Analysts say the talks appear to be picking up momentum."

Rephrase the Crimea sentence to maintain legal accuracy while clarifying attribution, e.g., "...as well as the Crimean Peninsula, which most of the international community regards as illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014 under international law."

Replace value-laden verbs with more neutral ones or attribute them, e.g., change "Putin may balk at some of the proposals" to "Putin may reject some of the proposals" or "Analysts say Putin may reject some of the proposals."

Where possible, balance framing by similarly neutral wording for all sides (e.g., avoid verbs that imply stubbornness or bad faith for only one party).

Unbalanced reporting

Providing more detail, context, or sympathetic framing for one side than for others, which can tilt reader perception even without overtly biased language.

1) The article gives relatively detailed quotes and context for Zelenskyy’s and U.S. positions (e.g., "very workable" plan, 'free economic zone', unity of U.S., Europe, and Ukraine), but offers only brief, general statements of Russia’s position beyond Peskov’s quotes. 2) The U.S./Ukraine side is described as seeking 'peace deal', 'compromise', 'security guarantees', while Russia’s goals are summarized mainly as wanting recognition of seized territories and a 'comprehensive peace deal', without exploring Russia’s stated security concerns or conditions. 3) The article notes that "American officials on Monday said that there's consensus from Ukraine and Europe on about 90% of the U.S.-authored peace plan" but does not provide any Russian perspective on that plan beyond the generic possibility that Putin "may balk" and Peskov’s general comments.

4 suggestions

Include more specific detail on Russia’s stated conditions or red lines for a peace agreement (e.g., NATO expansion concerns, sanctions relief demands), clearly labeled as Russia’s position, to parallel the detail given for Ukraine/U.S.

Add a brief sentence summarizing how Russian officials have previously characterized Western peace proposals (e.g., as one-sided, ignoring Russian security interests), with attribution, to balance the portrayal of each side’s stance.

Where the article mentions consensus on 90% of the plan, add whether Russia has officially responded to or commented on that plan, even if only to say it has not yet done so.

Ensure that each side’s goals and constraints are described with similar granularity and neutrality, so readers can compare positions without implicit favoritism.

Appeal to authority / Social proof (mild)

Relying on statements from powerful actors or the fact that many parties agree as implicit evidence of correctness or inevitability, without presenting substantive arguments.

1) "American officials on Monday said that there's consensus from Ukraine and Europe on about 90% of the U.S.-authored peace plan." – This emphasizes broad agreement among U.S., Ukraine, and Europe, which can function as social proof that the plan is reasonable, without explaining the underlying merits or criticisms. 2) "U.S. President Donald Trump said: 'I think we're closer now than we have been, ever' to a peace settlement." – The president’s optimism is reported, but no countervailing expert or independent assessment is provided to evaluate whether this is realistic or politically motivated.

4 suggestions

Complement official claims of consensus with brief independent or expert analysis, e.g., quotes from neutral analysts or international organizations assessing how close the sides actually are to agreement.

Clarify that official statements reflect the perspectives or interests of those actors, not objective fact, e.g., "American officials say there is consensus..." followed by "Independent analysts caution that key issues remain unresolved."

Where leaders express optimism (e.g., "closer now than we have been, ever"), add context such as historical attempts or current sticking points to help readers gauge whether such optimism is warranted.

If available, include any critical or skeptical views from other stakeholders (e.g., some European states, international law experts) about the U.S.-authored plan.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex, multi-dimensional conflict and negotiation process to a few headline elements, which can obscure important nuances.

1) The article frames the situation largely as a matter of finalizing a U.S.-authored peace plan and presenting it to Russia, with limited mention of other actors (e.g., broader international community, multilateral organizations) or complex internal political constraints in Ukraine and Russia. 2) The land issue is described as "one of the most difficult obstacles" but the article does not mention other major obstacles (e.g., war crimes accountability, security architecture, sanctions, displaced persons), which may give the impression that territory is the only or overwhelmingly dominant issue.

4 suggestions

Add one or two sentences acknowledging that the conflict and peace process involve multiple dimensions beyond territory, such as security guarantees, sanctions, reconstruction, and accountability for war crimes.

Note that domestic political considerations in both Ukraine and Russia, as well as positions of other international actors (e.g., EU, NATO, UN), may affect the feasibility of any agreement.

Clarify that the U.S.-authored plan is one framework among others and that Russia’s acceptance is uncertain, to avoid implying that the process is linear or nearly complete.

Where space is limited, explicitly signal that the article is a brief update and not a comprehensive overview, e.g., "This article focuses on the latest round of talks and does not cover all aspects of the conflict or peace negotiations."