The Ukraine-war-following press and commentators have had to weigh in on the latest bright shiny object, in the form of rumors of revived peace talks between the US and Russia. An outline of the purported 28 point plan is on Twitter; Larry Johnson reports it came from the Russian negotiator, Kiril Dimitriev, a special envoy to Putin.
Full text of 28 point Trump peace plan that is published by Ukrainian MP & media:
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be… pic.twitter.com/vRrunW0q8a— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) November 20, 2025
The negotiation scheme (not clear whether this term sheet or a somewhat similar outline of key provisions) has already been rejected by Ukraine and the Europeans, although Bloomberg says Zelensky after having been browbeaten by a delegation of US military officials is deigning to entertain it.
Us Army Sec Driscoll, Army Chief of Staff Gen George, and Gen Donahue (US Army Europe & Africa) have just delivered one-line message to Zelensky – THE WAR IS LOST, NEGOTIATE NOW OR DIE NEXT WEEK. Listen to podcast with Jamarl Thomas. https://t.co/h28QrYk7zn pic.twitter.com/7cV8H3b7lu
— Dances_with_Bears (@bears_with) November 20, 2025
Helmer points out in a related post that while Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov maintains that there are no discussions underway beyond the items in the Alaska summit, other Russian-connected sources contend that there could be competition between official and unofficial channels. And Helmer further points out that the 28 points are similar to a 31 point outline from Russia in June. But one suspects that artful wording has considerably shifted what some of those statements said, such as a very cheeky claim in the Telegraph and elsewhere that Russia is being asked to lease the Donbass. Lordie.
As we show below, Johnson and other Russia-sympathetic commentators have described in detail this proposal will be unacceptable to the Russian side. Even before getting to the outline, the elephant in the room is that it is now obvious that Russia will win and can decide how far to go in territorial acquisition. So why should they concede anything, particularly since Europe is just about guaranteed to behave as badly as it is no matter how the war concludes (absent perhaps a continued grind producing more and more regime changes in key EU member states)?
And to underscore the point, a fresh story:
A new, detailed post on Ameriknets sets forth in detail the latest development in the electricity war. Its conclusions:
The available evidence suggests that Russian strikes are outpacing Ukraine’s ability to repair its grid. Two weeks after the strike on the 7th, a generous timeframe to complete major repairs considering how efficient Ukraine’s engineers have become, the situation has only continued to deteriorate. Major urban centers are now without power for the majority of the day. With the situation spiraling out of control, outage schedules have been temporarily discarded in some areas….
The damage to transmission infrastructure has been severe enough that Ukraine’s three nuclear power plants, which provide more than half of its energy, have been forced to further limit their output as their connections to the rest of the country are severed.
A perfect storm is now hitting Ukraine, as political, battlefield, and infrastructural pressure mount to unprecedented levels since the war began. Full grid collapse is now on the table. It’s just a question of if the Russians will choose to pull the plug.
This outcome should come as no surprise. We have been pointing out since the idea of US-Russia negotiations came up that they would fail due to the lack of an overlap in the bargaining positions of both sides…..which are not the US and Russia, but Russia and Ukraine, with Ukraine backed by an increasingly divided set of coalition partners.
Before we get to issues of substance, as in highlighting why many of the points in this plan are unacceptable, let’s consider oft-neglected process issues.
Despite the press treating these provisions as hashed out by the US and Russia, neither negotiator is operating in an official capacity. Steve Witkoff is not a member of any US official body but is a special advisor to Donald Trump. Dimitriev is operating in an analogous capacity for Vladimir Putin. Both should be viewed as agents who cannot bind their principals but can float ideas. It is not clear how much official backing any of these ideas had. The Russians are well aware of Witkoff’s inability to make firm commitments. When Witkoff met with Putin in early August, Witkoff presented a proposal that had enough promise for Putin to agree to meet Trump in Alaska. As has since been recounted, Putin felt it necessary to review all the terms with Trump in person and get his confirmation that Trump was on board with them. Similarly, Larry Johnson just interviewed the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Maria Zharakova. She said the ministry had not received a formal document. So as far as the Russian government is concerned, this is still a trial balloon, although presumably they will be in receipt soon.
Aside from the Russian disposition to adhere to formalities, another reason for its skepticism is that the US cannot commit key members of the coalition, Ukraine, the UK, and European states, and they have not been on board with the process of settling the war, save unless “settlement” is tantamount to Russian capitulation. That happened dramatically with the flip-flop after the Alaska summit, where Lavrov later reported that Trump said he would get Zelensky to agree to the outline then. Instead, after meeting with Zelensky, Trump repudiated the preliminary deal and reverted to the older Ukraine “ceasefire first, deal if ever later” formula that Trump had dropped in Alaska.
We see again and again Trump pretending he can be a broker, when the US is a principal. The tacit assumption has been that the US can browbeat Ukraine, the UK and Europe into compliance when that had not happened. And it is vastly less likely to happen than ever due to the US refusing to fund the war and cutting back on NATO support. He who has the gold sets the rules, but gold-lover Trump has forgotten that. Europe has accepted the premise that it will have to fund Ukraine even though it has no idea as to how to do so ex stealing Russia’s frozen assets.
To give one example of that wee problem, see this item from the list:
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages on a case-by-case basis;
b. The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities;
c. Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
Notice the lack of agency for item (a)? The sanctions are not just US sanctions. The EU is up to its 19th package. And the EU has worked itself into such a fervor over Russia as an imminent threat that there is no way they will unwind them.
Point 14 has $100 billion of the frozen Russian assets going to US-led reconstruction fund…where the US gets 50% of the profits! And I want a pony.
There’s a lot of speculation as to why this scheme now, when that line of speculation does not seem productive, given how erratic Trump is. But since Trump knows nothing beyond what Fox News and key insiders tell him, the idea that he was trying to take advantage of a small beer corruption scandal, relative to all the hands-over-fists looting of foreign contributions, seems improbable. That is confirmed by the very deep and detailed reading of the political tea leaves by the site Events in Ukraine, which sees the scandal uproar as the doings of opposition figures taking advantage of rising upset in the Rada over the prospect of a Ukraine loss, plus simmering resentment over the earlier Zelensky attempt to quash the investigation bodies. Alexander Mercouris reports he has confirmation of that general story line from a Hungarian contact, who points out that the anti-corruption agencies are funded by the EU, so there’s no US nexus. The UK and EU do not want Ukraine to settle the war. A rare official editorial weighs at the Financial Ties in against the idea of a unity government (and any move to replace Zelensky now) as too destabilizing, so they press for a house-cleaning instead. A “national unity government” is what the Rada rebels led by former Prime Minister Petro Poroshenko were seeking, so the Financial Times editorial suggests they lack the external support they would need.
It seems just as likely that Trump felt the need to again look like the driver of events after his Epstein climbdown and now pushback on Venezuela, including a commercial urging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders. Mind you, the latter went live after the Witkoff-Dimitriev talks had gotten going, but that along with continuing deteriorating polls shows that Trump is facing more and more opposition. One of the last things he wants is to be depicted as having lost Ukraine. Trump is deluded enough to think he can somehow get a deal despite the vast evidence that the only one that could happen is some form of Ukraine capitulation.
Let’s look at some of the many thumb’s down reviews of this tired rerun of the peace pact drama. The Financial Times reports on yet another piece of typical Trump empty bravura, that he wants Zelensky to capitulate by Thanksgiving. I seem to recall he similarly demanded a summit with Putin by Valentine’s Day, which didn’t happen either.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett adopts a suitably dismissive stance:
As I worried yesterday, none of this is serious. There is no reason whatsoever why Russia, winning on the battlefield, with Putin’s June 2024 terms long outdated by battefield advances, amidst a forever stream of evidence that confirms that the US is agreement-incapable, would want to pick up on this insane mishmash, let alone why Ukraine or Europe would sign it either. Note that it is only “expected” that NATO will not expand. Yes, Ukraine would have to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO and NATO would agree a statute prohibiting acceptance of NATO as a member, but Ukraine would retain the right to EU membership.
Once again, after four miserable years of comparable US stupidity, the whole thing is being framed as Mr. Nice USA sorting out a playground scruffle between two equally pugnacious little boys. The Washington mindset, in other words, is a fantasy of benign hegemony. Ukraine would be allowed an absolutely idiotic 600,000-sized army (Russia in 2022 was talking of a cap of 85,000) and given “reliable” security guarantees. No foreign troops in Ukraine (I assume but do not see this as explicitly stated) but European fighter aircraft would be stationed in Poland.
Oddly, Boyd-Barrett does not flag this item as a no-go:
Kherson and Zapporizhzhia would be frozen along the line of contact; Russia would renounce other annexed territories (other than Crimea and the Donbass).
Russia has changed its constitution to incorporate all of Kherson and Zaporzhizhia into the Russian Federation. Even though Russia does not yet occupy them, securing all four oblasts in full has been one of Russia’s consistent requirements for ending the war since Putin’s Foreign Ministry speech in June 2024.
It looks like a stunt. Perhaps there’s an expectation or hope that Putin will get sucked into this. But when you read it you see that very little is actually hard and fast—except for those items that Russia will likely see as unacceptable, it’s full of dialogue and discussion and expectations. Nothing really binding. This is undoubtedly why the US is pushing this hard while the Russians are denying that they’ve agreed to anything—Trump is trying to stampede the Russians. Much of the document appears totally unacceptable for any thinking Russian. Which is probably the point—to try to wrong foot Putin and Russia in world opinion.
Larry Johnson provided a fine recap of why the Russians will have to say “nyet” in The Alleged 28-Point Ukrainian and Russian Peace Plan, where he (like many others) goes through the entire list. Some of deadly items he highlighted:
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.
The word, expected, is a major stumbling block… Russia will insist on an iron-clad guarantee that NATO will end expansion and remove weapon systems from Romania and Poland that are capable of launching nuclear missiles….
6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
In February 2022, at the start of Russia’s special military operation, the total size of the Ukrainian military was about 260,000–280,000 active-duty personnel, including all branches (ground forces, air force, navy, airborne, marines, and special operations). There is no way that Russia will agree to a 600,000 number. During the negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul in March 2022, Russia demanded a peacetime cap of 85,000 active personnel for Ukraine’s armed forces, a figure far below Ukraine’s pre-war standing army of approximately 200,000–250,000 troops. This was part of broader Russian demands for demilitarization, including restrictions on tanks (e.g., fewer than 400), aircraft (e.g., 60–80 combat aircraft), missiles (range limited to 40 km), and artillery systems
/blockquote>9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.
I believe that Russia will demand specific limitations on the type of NATO aircraft that will be allowed in Poland.
Simplicius flags the characteristic amateurism of the process….:
Now the plan has come together with the announcement of a secretly-developed, major new peace formula for the ending of the war. The problem is, the details are extremely scattered and incongruous, leading to the perception of the proceedings being more the product of some smoke-filled mafia ‘sit-down’ rather than a professionally transparent political process.
That’s because—as has become de rigueur under Trump’s leadership—the details are filled with hazy ambiguities and contradictions.
…and some howlers:
The most important part is: the agreement is “legally binding”.
Legally bound by whom, exactly? Who is the guarantor here, Trump? The failing autarch likely to be impeached after 2026? What happens then? Clearly, from Russia’s standpoint, there is little merit here.
Deal-breakers in here:
– The Russians will not accept territorial ambiguity or demilitarized zones on their own territory.
– The Russians will not accept “conditional” recognition of their own nation’s borders.
– The Russians will not hand over Russian children.
– ZNPP is a Russian nuclear power plant that must be managed by Rosatom; the IAEA is a joke.
– The Russians are not going to give amnesty to Ukraine’s parade of Nazis and war criminals.
– A 600,000-man AFU is ludicrous.If the deal is “Donetsk, Lugansk, and uti possidetis, all legally recognized by NATO as the international border,” a 60,000-man AFU with no long-range weapons, Russian language and religious rights, and a ban on the Nazis? Then we might be getting somewhere.
Not to mention this bit, according to the Telegraph:
Russia will pay a rental fee to Ukraine for de facto control over Donbass under US plan — The Telegraph
The plan would force Ukraine to lease the eastern Donbass region to Russia, ceding operational control while maintaining legal ownership
In what world would that happen in?
Even some less-critical-seeming items are unlikely to wash in Russia. One is that both sides will forgive each other for acts perpetrated during the war. But Ukraine soldiers brutally tortured Russian soldiers early on, with some of quite a bit of video evidence making its way into Russian Telegram. Russia promised war crimes trials. And tellingly, Putin just remarked that crimes committed by Nazis have no statute of limitations. How can Russia forgive these Nazi wannabes in light of that view?
As for the UK/Europe side, some of the raspberries. From the Wall Street Journal:
European officials pushed back against a U.S. proposal for ending the Ukraine war, saying that Kyiv must approve any plan and that the conflict must not end with a Ukrainian capitulation.
European officials will now have to reprise a role they have played periodically since President Trump’s return to the White House in January: using connections in Washington to try to pull the administration back from a proposal they see as too favorable to Russia….
European officials said they hadn’t been involved in drafting the plan and hadn’t so far been briefed on the U.S. proposal. A senior European diplomat said it wasn’t clear whether Europeans will get more information from Washington soon….
The plan includes several elements that Ukraine and its European allies have long opposed. It says that Ukraine would have to surrender some land in Ukraine’s east that Kyiv still holds. It would place a cap on the size of Ukraine’s military and reduce the type of long-range weapons Kyiv receives from allies, which European officials have warned could open the way for a future Russian attack on Ukraine and more loss of territory.
It would also block a so-called reassurance force that the Europeans have offered to send to Ukraine if there is a peace deal.
The 28-point peace plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump on Thursday and developed by US and Russian negotiators, envisages major concessions by Kyiv that would cross its long-standing red lines…
They added that US officials expect Zelenskyy to sign the agreement “before Thanksgiving” on Thursday next week, with the aim of presenting a peace deal in Moscow later this month and concluding the process by early December.
That timeline appears highly unlikely to be achieved since officials in Zelenskyy’s office said there were several points that were clear red lines for Kyiv.
They added they were working on counter proposals to present to the US side. Ukrainian civil society is also likely to push back against any deal that is perceived as capitulation or more favourable to Moscow.
“It’s minerals deal 2.0,” said a senior Ukrainian official, referring to the contentious accord between Kyiv and Washington thrashed out over several months earlier this year that gave the US rights to Ukraine’s critical minerals.
From Politico’s morning European newsletter:
U.S. TOUTS “AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE” FOR PEACE: European officials are scrambling to weigh in on a peace deal that Washington wants Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sign in the coming days. The deal, which Axios and others have published in full, requires Kyiv to make significant concessions.
Europe speaks up: Following reports that the 28-point plan would force Kyiv to reduce the size of its army, hand over the entire Donbas and legally recognize territories seized by Moscow’s forces, top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas weighed in to say it contained “no concessions from Russia.” Among other measures, the plan would see Russia invited to rejoin the G8.
Ceasefire first: German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Russia must “immediately halt the attacks on energy infrastructure” now that winter is beginning,…
Talking up a storm: An EU official texted Playbook that there was a “flurry of diplomacy” ongoing as Europeans try to shore up the Ukrainian position and avoid a agreement that’s lopsided in Russia’s favor. “We can’t afford a deal that endangers European security,” the official said…..
Toning it down: Dave Butler, communications adviser to the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, said the U.S. and Ukraine were discussing a “collaborative” and “comprehensive” plan to end the war.
Behind closed doors: The emphasis on collaboration hints at flexibility on some demands in the plan — which Ukraine’s foreign minister blasted on Thursday during closed-door comments with EU foreign ministers, according to a person aware of his remarks. “They want Ukraine to capitulate,” Andrii Sybiha said during a video call, per the same person…
The bottom line: Ukraine has been here before, namely when Trump sought to impose a lopsided mining agreement on Kyiv. The Ukrainian side ultimately agreed to the plan, with considerable modifications. But despite all the drama, the deal didn’t bring peace any closer. This time may be no different.
However, keep in mind that the new conventional wisdom even among the not-entirely-rabid Ukraine-backers is that it can’t hold out for more than a few months unless something big breaks its way. This crowd seems to harbor the fond notion that they can break the Russian economy if they just hang on.
Predictably, European leaders have rallied behind Zelensky. From the Guardian’s lead story Starmer, Merz and Macron confirm full support for Ukraine after call with Zelenskyy about US plan – Europe live. Importantly, they are trying to throw a spanner by insisting that they have to agree to the pact too:
Merz, Macron, Starmer confirm full support for Ukraine after call with Zelenskyy, Germany confirms
A spokesperson for the German chancellor, Fredrich Merz, has just confirmed that Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and UK’s Keir Starmer spoke with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, earlier this morning.The readout, published in German, said the leaders confirmed their “unwavering and full support for Ukraine on the path to a lasting and just peace.”
The leaders also “welcomed the US efforts to end the war in Ukraine,”…
But, crucially, they also noted that any peace agreement “affecting European states, the European Union, or Nato requires the approval of European partners or a consensus among the allies.”
And fresh reports are coming in that the US is trying to bludgeon Ukraine into compliance…which is another reason for trying to keep the Europeans in the dark. From the Telegraph:
The United States has threatened to cut off weapons and intelligence to Ukraine unless it signs Donald Trump’s peace deal by next Thursday.
Sources said Ukraine was under greater pressure from Washington to bow to the US president’s demands than in previous negotiation efforts.
“They want to stop the war and want Ukraine to pay the price,” one of the sources told Reuters.
Volodymyr Zelensky said on Thursday he would use the plan as the basis for negotiations with Russia but Kyiv has warned its red lines must not be crossed in any peace deal.
The Ukrainian leader spoke to his European allies on Friday, including Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, who “welcomed efforts of the US” but called for a “just and lasting peace” for Ukraine.
Note that cutting off weapons is close to an empty threat, given how little the US has to offer. Intelligence is another matter. But can the US deliver even here? Scott Ritter has said that the CIA’s Russia House unit, which is ferociously hostile to Russia, is an uncontrolled operation, with even the formidable “bloody” Gina Haspel failing to bring it to heel when tasked to do so. Admittedly CIA refusniks might not have access to the full panoply of critical signit. But could they conceivably be able to provide enough to allow for targeting?
In addition, the big reason for Trump’s rush, and in particular to secure Zelenksy’s capitulation is to deny Ukraine hawks time to organize to stymie Trump politically. I doubt Zelensky has the cojones to try to arrange a visit with, say, Lindsay Graham. But a call?
Part of the US messaging campaign to win over Ukraine supporters is to depict the scheme as containing solid protections, per the Axios headline: Trump peace plan for Ukraine includes NATO-style security guarantee. Anyone who has been following this and other sites on what Article 5 amounts to knows full well it’s a very weak obligation.
We’ll stop here, even though there is much more we could say. This is an overly-dynamic and some of the uncertainties will start to sort themselves out in pretty short order.
48 comments
Comments are closed.
This whole plan sounds like it was the result of a Trump focus group done over the weekend and fueled by pizzas and beer. It’s not hard to work out why this proposal came out now. The Ukrainian army is collapsing on several fronts and the Russians are taking fortified town after fortified town. This being the case, this plan is just at its heart a conflict freeze that would leave the Ukrainians in a strong position to start up the war again and leave the Russians with a valueless Minsk 3 agreement. You read through this plan and it is not list of what the Russian Federation wants but what the Trump regime thinks that the Russians want. Point 14 though is pure Trump-
’14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: US$100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another US$100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.’
The gist is that the Russians will not gain back control of their own money and will be forced to invest US$100 billion into reconstruction in the Ukraine. I’m sure that the Russians would rather that money be spent in the reconstruction of the heavily damaged Donbass. Then the US intends to swipe 50% of the profits from this Russian money. To add insult to injury, the US is demanding that the remaining money be invested in US projects so that they can skim profits off that as well. This is pure Trump and in another part of this plan (10.) Trump is demanding ‘compensation’ for US guarantees of this plan. The whole plan is just a dog’s breakfast to hide the fact that Trump is going to take an enormous loss in the Ukraine and with this plan, he can be seen as getting a big win on the board instead.
Best Russia enter onto: a long running conference on the lines of the Paris conferences over the Vietnam civil war. After they get their assets back with interest they can decide the shape of the table.
Several points:
US leads a band of [barbarian] vassals. US is out to conquer (see Thucydides trap) the world. Any agreement will be used to further that point.
US will use negotiation to lull it target, see Iran.
US and vassals have no morals. Agreement incompetent.
Don’t trust the neocon tool, Trump!
I had a conversation with quite a prominent person who is sympathetic to the Ukrainian side, but who knows the state of the country better than most. He also has contacts in Russia.. He is flabbergasted that the Euros don´t everything to talk to the Russians and why they even hinder whatever Trump is trying. He just doesn´t understand as things can only get worse.
I couldn´t make him understand as this is suicidal on the part of the Europeans. The only explanation is that Merz, Starmer and Macron need this war for internal reasons. All three are extremely unpopular and there is rising internal chaos. It is kicking the can down the road and staying a little longer in power. If there’s a cold winter though and problems with heating and electricity I don´t think that at least Merz would survive such a disaster. In that case it is bye bye Selensky as well.
Here is how Russian government-adjacent TV and radio commentators are explaining the EU’s little suicide pact – at present, i.e. I’ve heard this literally in the past day or three.
Start with the assumption that any realistic peace deal is a de-facto Ukrainian capitulation to Russian demands, and will be viewed by the West as a comprehensive defeat.
If the Europeans agree to, support, or simply not oppose such a peace deal, then a) they will “own” it, i.e. it will be “their” defeat, used by domestic political opponents (AfD, etc.) in the next election cycle; b) they will have a harder time ginning up anti-Russian hysteria, since they’ve just agreed with a “surrender” to the Russians, which c) is a key component of “military pseudo-Keynesianism” they want to pivot into economically.
If the Europeans violently oppose any such peace deal, and then Ukraine collapses, then a) it will be “Trump’s surrender” (or “someone else’s” surrender, in any case), and groups like AfD can be blamed too for being “defeatist”; b) they will continue to drum up “the Russians are coming” type of hysteria, which will c) support further cuts to social spending in favor of increasing military spending.
So politically, it makes perfect sense for the Europeans to hold out for extreme outcomes – Ukrainian or Russian capitulation – and not compromise on any sensible ones. That’s the story being told on Russian TV and radio at the moment.
I myself would add that the Europeans are not exactly free agents here. I suspect many in Washington, including in the CIA, the Pentagon, etc., do not care about Ukraine per se, but rather about continuing to bludgeon the Russians until regime change happens. Remember, this has been US policy basically for the past quarter century, with the first proxy war against the Russians dating back to 2008 (the 5-day war against Georgia). Trumps come and go, the “Deep State” remains (even Putin has said as much in public not too long ago). It is no big stretch to imagine that various personages in Washington are reaching out to the Europeans to, err, stiffen their spines, so to speak.
That was VERY helpful. Thanks!
You forget about the two Chechen Wars…
And the foreplay in the Balkans, which directly resulted in Putin at the helm.
Thanks for this post
Garbage in. Garbage out.
Leaving aside the contents of this dog’s breakfast (if it’s a package, it’s un-negotiable, if it’s not I have no idea by what mechanism the bits could be could be negotiated and related to each other) a few procedural points stand out very clearly.
First, the US has publicly announced that it no longer supports the idea of restoring Ukraine to its 1991 boundaries. Even if this is supposed to be part of some “deal”,” or even if Trump then tries to row back altogether, the damage is done. The Russians will “pocket” this concession, as the saying goes, and any further negotiations will begin from the territorial assumptions included in this list. (I’m not sure Trump realises what he has done, but that’s another issue.)
Second, much of what is in the list is unenforceable, because it’s a principle of international law that no government can bind its successor. Unless there is a non-withdrawal clause, which I can’t believe, then any future government of any of the parties could simply denounce the Treaty or any part of it at a later date.
Third, the negotiations this implies could go on for a decade. Changing the NATO Treaty to say that Ukraine could never join, even if it were possible, would require ratification by 30 states, and that’s only one example. In any event, many things in the list are not within the US gift to offer, or even influence very much.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the list signals that the great fear of the Europeans since the late 1940s is now coming true, and the United States is starting to make deals with the Russians over the heads of the Europeans, even when their interests are involved. After all, today Ukraine, tomorrow the Black Sea, the next day …
“… the list signals that the great fear of the Europeans since the late 1940s is now coming true, and the United States is starting to make deals with the Russians over the heads of the Europeans, even when their interests are involved.”
You have emphasized this point many times, and I have no doubt it is true for the current European leadership. But this ignores the other, opposite dynamic that in my opinion is crucial – and has been so since the 1940s. A major faction, indeed the dominant faction, of the foreign policy Establishment in the US has always been fearful of the *Europeans* making deals with the Russians. This was absolutely a fear, and motivating factor, in our postwar foreign policy. I have no doubt that many European leaders had understandable security concerns regarding the USSR – and each other – after WWII and welcomed the US and the creation of NATO for that reason. But it is not accurate that a hesitant US was dragged kicking and screaming into this relationship. While some officials expressed this view, there has always been an Atlanticist Establishment that pushed for US involvement and indeed saw NATO a a mechanism for “keeping the Americans in and the Russians out.”
I keep bringing this up because it is this concern among those within the US Establishment who continued to push NATO expansion after 1991, who were fearful of European economic ties with Russia, especially after it began to recover and Europe began to “make deals” with the Russians, and have been supporting anti-Russian elements in Ukraine since 2004. And it is this faction that continues to resist any effort by the Trump administration to bring this war to an end.
None of this contradicts the amateurish and unrealistic nature of the Trump administration’s actions as noted by Yves and in the rest of your comment. I completely agree with those observations. But the idea that European leaders have always feared Russia, and the US has always been a reluctant protector who would just as soon make deals with them, misses a crucial element in this long and tragic history. *We* pushed Russia into a corner. *We* wanted to severe its growing economic ties with Europe once we failed to dismantle it on our terms. To ignore that element misses the most important part of the story.
Oh, as you say these are real concerns and they have been discussed in the past. My point was simply that, in this case, the nature of the text and the way it was apparently put together does reinforce this European concern in particular.
The NATO issue would be resolved if Ukraine restores its former constitution and independence declaration, affirming its neutrality between the EU and the RF.
It is a badly crafted laundry list designed by some lackey who once saw a film about one war and read bits of a book on another, the only purpose of which is to detract from Trump’s domestic problems, not least those relating to the disatisfaction of the MAGA base.
There are lots of things in it that the Russians have no absolutely no reason to agree.
It’s better to take the continuing illegal sanctions from Europe and the US, forget about the irrelevant G7, look to your new partners and associates, and just plug away at the war, demanding an unconditional surrender and getting the gallows ready for the war criminals, and if that bothers Europe, just make an example of one or two or three or more large cities for the war crimes the US and the European states have committed against the people of the Donbas and the damage they have attempted to inflict on Russian trade before demanding reparations from every country which provided Ukraine with the werewithal – money, weapons, ammunition and people – to fight this filthy war the Collective \West conspired to impose on the Russian people.
…Trump’s domestic problems
Trumps domestic problems are produced by the same group of delusional morons, the difference being that in the US they can actually implement their self serving agenda.
I can’t even see a basis for negotiation. I mean, frequently these draughts come out as near maximalist demands that are to be walked back at the negotiation table for other concessions but the concept as a whole is “we stuck you with a war and the best you can get from us is to pay for it” in every conceivable dimension.
Most people around me believe this incident is a reenactment of the Munich Agreement orchestrated by Prime Minister Chamberlain.
Sorry to have taken longer than thought. All done now, but I may toss in some tweet decoration if I come across germane additions.
A key discussion comes close to the end, of how EU pushback is shaping up and whether US opponents will seriously saddle up.
I have read that during the GWB era, Putin raised the idea of Russian Federation joining NATO. GWB was open to the idea, but was talked down by his advisors.
Perhaps one could square the “Ukraine in NATO” circle by allowing entry in principle, but with the condition that Ukraine shall not accede to NATO prior to Russian Federation accession to the alliance. Both RF and UKR presence in NATO would ensure peaceful relations between them.
It’s an absurd idea given present realities, but the present realities are themselves absurd.
Putin talked about this with Bill Clinton. Clinton conferred with his aides and the next day refused Russia admission to NATO. This is a well-known story.
In 1954 Molotov proposed that Soviet Union would join NATO, with the purpose of preventing West German rearmament and the reunification of the two Germanys as part of the pan-European security arrangement.
NATO chose otherwise.
Now that Trump is selling weapons to Ukraine, does anyone know how much and of what is actually being sold/delivered?
According to Ukraine’s Arms Monitor, from July to November European NATO members have contributed about 3 billion dollars in weapons purchases from July to early November through the PURL initiative. Let’s say 3 months Aug, Sept, Oct. with a total of 5 packages of weapons. I don’t know how this compares with previous years.
Some business is being done there.
God is there any better example of Trump’s gauche provincialism than imagining that the rest of the world finds US holidays meaningful or relevant.
“The Financial Times reports on yet another piece of typical Trump empty bravura, that he wants Zelensky to capitulate by Thanksgiving. I seem to recall he similarly demanded a summit with Putin by Valentine’s Day, which didn’t happen either”
Apropos the idea from the Daily Telegraph that Russia should lease the ‘occupied territories’, this brings to mind shades of Russia previously leasing the naval base in Sevastopol. That the US were supposedly pressurising Ukraine to terminate that lease in order for the US to take over the naval base, even to the point of already inviting tenders to develop various US facilities there, was one primary reason why Putin moved swiftly to take full control over Crimea in 2014, to ensure Russia retained its naval base and with it, dominance over the Black Sea.
Russia would surely never contemplate being put in any kind of similar compromising situation regarding ownership vs leasing.
If Russia leased the ‘occupied territories’, then that is as good as saying that it is the Ukraine that has actual sovereignty over them. The Russians aren’t going to fall for that one.
Russia leased its Crimean sea bases from Ukraine. Their refusal to renew in 2014 got us in this mess. Possession is nine points of the law. Or whatever.
This is false. Making Shit Up is a violation of our written site Polices. From a 2010 Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/ukraine-black-sea-fleet-russia
The hard part for the West is picking the end date for its imagined omnipotence.
The suits say yes, the suits say no. What do the tens-of-thousands of heavily armed Banderites say? They finally gain power after 70 odd years raging in the shadows, and they are going to quietly go along with a suits settlement? Gordon Hahn seems to be the only commentator that takes these people seriously. They sport Nazi tattoos for a reason. In the end they may be less interested in killing Russians than in killing any of their fellow citizens who would attempt to make peace with the Russians. Good luck with an peace plan.
The farcical “negotiations” do remind me more and more of how things played out in this clip, with Tiny Cox as the US, Billy Bob as Europe, and Bernie Mac as Russia.
I’d love to hear Putin tell Trump that there will be no deal and this is prix fixe, and being a sophisticated person, I bet he’d even pronounce it right.
I’m wondering why it’s 28 points: to make it twice as good as the Wilson plan for WWI?
I don’t think that any of the US draftees know about WIlson’s 14 points…
It’s a twelve-step program with extra steps.
I take Events In Ukraine seriously and it’s certainly the case that the corruption stuff is an important set of levers in Kiev politics. Otoh if it were just local politics, how come there’s been such a media campaign in the west about it? We’ve had weeks of headlines asking if Zelensky can survive paired with photos of him looking worried or sheepish. We don’t generally get this kind of coverage of Ukraine’s domestic politics. Hence I think while the Trump admin probably isn’t driving that story, which is a couple of years old anyway, it’s happy to amplify and publicize it to put some pressure on Zelensky and make it easier to sell Eurospols on new Ukraine elections.
Because Porshenko was President of Ukraine once and can pull a few media strings. And the press loves palace intrigues. And there was coverage of Zelensky seriously muscling the Rada to end the anti-corruption agencies, almost succeeding and then being pressured by the EU to accept them. And more and more people recognize that Zelensky should have fled already and wonder what the end game will be.
Taiwan – are you paying attention yet?
Because the real ugly neocon reality about Ukraine is even the current situation in Ukraine is viewed as a “partial success” by the elite American neocons. And those same neocons would rather have a completely wrecked Taiwan than a Taiwan peacefully integrated with China.
“The word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” – U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
Always disappointed in the American public that they don’t make themselves more informed.
Perhaps I am asking too much. But would help if there was more pressure from the American people to end this war.
Disappointment is a direct consequence of unrealistic expectations.
Here’s something from 1992, when USA was great(er).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c
…they’re to frazzled paying the rent/mortgage and finding schools where Suzy can learn to read and Jonny do math. And besides, they know they don’t live in a democracy. Congress is just Kabuki.
But many still make time to vote for the kabuki duopoly instead of third parties.
“Not viable”, you say? To quote Ian Welsh:
“The reason third parties aren’t “viable” is that people won’t vote for them because they aren’t viable. You see the issue.”
They’re too busy wavin’ the flag, singin’ the anthem, stuffin’ belly with junk, takin’ them drugs, and votin’ for the lesser of two evils, hopin’ that the next big guy will be not as bad as the previous one and somehow make their empire great again, and that a few drops of imperial nectar will trickle-down into their wide open beaks, because they too are exceptional.
Hmmm…. I thought it was a No play
Ordinary Americans do not make policy. Big donors do. There are tons of policies ordinary Americans favor (as measured repeatdly in polls and surveys over the years), often by large majorities, like strengthening Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety nets, cheap college edudation (which state universities once provided), higher minimum wages, taxing the rich, and yes, ending and not starting wars.
Actually, I’m pleasantly surprised by this “28-point Plan”, though there certainly is some silly stuff in there (“…implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump”. Also, I get 50% of that pony that Yves wants…).
Of course there are things in there which Russia will refuse /as is/, but as a starting-point for further negotiations, the plan seems pretty reasonable.
Of course “Europe” will clutch their pearls, but they are stuck negotiating from a position of severe (or even absolute?) weakness.
IMO, the new boundaries proposed here make pretty good sense *for both sides*. For Ukraine, it’s the best they can hope for, given the facts on the ground. For Russia, it fulfills their highest territorial priority (land bridge to Crimea) while minimizing future risks.
If Russia insists on taking all of Kherson & Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, they’d be stuck with indefensible land West of the Dniepr, and would have to waste a lot of money supporting it. Taking the Cities of Kherson & Zaporizhzhia would expose them to water pollution from upstream (as someone – sorry, I forget who – pointed out here some time ago). Leaving those Cities to Ukraine reduces the temptation of turning the lower Dniepr into an open sewer out of spite. Conversely, if Russia claims those Cities, they may feel like they have to conquer and occupy the entire Dniepr watershed… which is pretty much /all/ of Ukraine.
At a bigger scale, I suspect that Russia would really prefer to keep their long-term geopolitical options open, by normalizing relations with Europe and the USA, rather than getting pushed [further] into a lopsided ‘alliance’ with China.
Russia presumably recognizes that its real enemies in the West are the Banksters who want to control the land and resources of both Ukraine and Russia (and, really, the rest of the World and Universe…). I suspect that the City of London is *the* key player in that fight, with the ECB and Wall Street involved but not as committed (they have better options elsewhere). Russia would be glad to sacrifice Ukraine to those Banksters, but will *not* allow them any control over Russian resources or finance. (IMO, that’s what the ‘Russo-Ukrainian War’ is really about…)
And of course, some of the 28 Points are DOA because of that.
OTOH, Russia – ever paranoid, because their History proves that everyone really *is* out to get them – looks warily over their shoulder at The Dragon slowly awakening from its Century of Humiliation. Russia knows that China covets its vast mineral resources. Worse, millions of Chinese would gladly move to Siberia for the chance to enrich and enlarge their families. Russia doesn’t want to wind up like Tibet…
Russia also has some motivation in the shorter term for ending the current war. ‘Ukrainian’ missile and drone attacks in Russia aren’t going to collapse the Russian economy, but OTOH, they aren’t painless.
Bottom line: this new ‘Plan’ is NOT going to be The Peace Plan, but IMO, it does count as Real Progress in the right direction.
Except you forgot that the West is not agreement capable.
Even if trump wanted to honor this agreement, the next administration in 3 years time will salami slice and start undermining it at every step.
It will be Minsk agreement all over again, come up with some clever ways of violating the deal, using big tech to influence the Ukrainian population against Russia, fund armed paramilitaries, to ultimately force another war that will put Russia into a worse position than they have now.
Putin will go down as a traitor in Russian history on Gorbachev proportions if he accepts this deal. Absolutely foolish
This “peace plan” looks more like a phishing expedition.
They said, demilitarization, denazification, equal rights for inhabitants, and neutrality.
The oblasts voted to join the Russian federation and have been accepted into the federation.
All I see here is yet more of (as I think Yves originally put it) “the West” negotiating (squabbling?) with itself.
I expect Russia in response to exercise its usual formidable formalism in diplomacy while continuing to establish “facts on the ground” consistent with Putin’s list of goals for the Special Military Operation, none of which have been rescinded as I understand them.