The Murky Plan That Ensures a Future War
The recently proposed 28-point peace plan by the United States and Russia has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it is mischaracterized as a peace initiative. Instead, it is seen as a strategy that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and creates a rift between the U.S. and Europe, potentially setting the stage for a larger conflict in the future. The plan, negotiated by Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer lacking expertise in Eastern European geopolitics, and Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, has drawn sharp criticism from European leaders and Ukrainian officials who are already bearing the brunt of military expenditures amidst the ongoing war. The ultimatum presented to Ukraine to accept the plan by Thanksgiving or face a withdrawal of U.S. support has further exacerbated tensions and raised questions about America’s reliability as an ally.
Central to the plan are several provisions that echo longstanding Russian demands, including U.S. recognition of Russian control over Crimea and other occupied territories in Ukraine. The proposal would effectively allow Russia to maintain its territorial gains while imposing severe restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities and political alliances. For instance, Ukraine would be required to enshrine in its constitution a commitment not to join NATO and reduce its armed forces from 900,000 to 600,000 troops. Moreover, the plan lacks clear security guarantees for Ukraine, raising concerns about its future defense against potential Russian aggression. Critics point out that the deal seems designed to weaken Ukraine, making it more susceptible to future invasions, and poses a significant risk of legitimizing Russia’s ongoing violations of international law.
The implications of this plan extend beyond Ukraine, as it threatens to fracture the transatlantic alliance, which has been a cornerstone of European security since World War II. By potentially lifting sanctions on Russia and reintegrating it into the global economy, the proposal appears to prioritize business interests, particularly for unnamed U.S. investors, over the security and humanitarian needs of Ukraine and Europe. Furthermore, the plan suggests a long-term economic cooperation agreement between the U.S. and Russia, which raises questions about the motivations behind such negotiations. As the situation unfolds, it is crucial for both American citizens and European stakeholders to demand transparency regarding the details of these negotiations and to consider the broader implications of accepting a plan that could echo historical precedents of power dynamics leading to conflict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d9ZRbh5AVY
The 28-point peace plan that the United States and Russia want to impose on Ukraine and Europe is misnamed. It is not a peace plan. It is a proposal that weakens Ukraine and divides America from Europe, preparing the way for a larger war in the future. In the meantime, it benefits unnamed Russian and American investors, at the expense of everyone else.
The plan was negotiated by Steve Witkoff, a real-estate developer with no historical, geographical, or cultural knowledge of Russia or Ukraine, and Kirill Dmitriev, who heads Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and spends most of his time making business deals. The revelation of their plan this week shocked European leaders, who are now paying almost all of the military costs of the war, as well as the Ukrainians, who were not sure whether to take this latest plan seriously until they were told to
agree to it by Thanksgiving
or lose all further U.S. support. Even if the plan falls apart, this arrogant and confusing ultimatum, coming only days after the State Department
authorized the sale
of anti-missile technology to Ukraine, will do permanent damage to America’s reputation as a reliable ally, not only in Europe but around the world.
The
central points of the plan
reflect long-standing Russian demands. The United States would recognize Russian rule over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk—all of which are part of Ukraine. Russia would, in practice, be allowed to keep territory it has conquered in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. In all of these occupation zones, Russian forces have carried out arrests, torture, and mass repression of Ukrainian citizens, and because Russia would not be held accountable for war crimes, they could continue to do so with impunity. Ukraine would withdraw from the part of Donetsk that it still controls—a heavily reinforced and mined territory whose loss would open up central Ukraine to a future attack.
[
Read: A self-defeating reversal on Ukraine
]
Not only would this plan cede territory, people, and assets to Russia; it also seems deliberately designed to weaken Ukraine, politically and militarily, so that Russia would find it easier to invade again a year from now, or 10 years from now. According to a version of the text that appeared in the
Financial Times
yesterday, the plan does state that “Ukraine’s sovereignty would be confirmed.” But it then imposes severe restrictions on Ukrainian sovereignty: Ukraine must “enshrine in its constitution” a promise to never join NATO. Ukraine must shrink the size of its armed forces to 600,000, down from 900,000. Ukraine may not host foreign troops on its soil. Ukraine must hold new elections within 100 days, a demand not made of Russia, a dictatorship that has not held free elections for more than two decades.
In return, the plan states that Ukraine “would receive security guarantees.” But it does not describe what those guarantees would be, and there is no reason to believe that President Donald Trump would ever abide by them. Russia would also “enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine,” a bizarre and meaningless statement, given that Russia currently has a policy of permanent aggression not only toward Ukraine but also
toward
Europe
and has, anyway, repeatedly violated promises before. The United States would lift sanctions on Russia, losing any existing leverage over President Vladimir Putin; invite Russia to rejoin the G8; and reintegrate Russia into the world economy. Awkward wording,
evident throughout the document
, suggests that at least some of it was originally written in Russian.
Why is the Trump White House pushing Ukraine to accept a Russian plan that paves the way for another war? The document offers some hints, declaring that the U.S. would also somehow take charge of the $100 billion in frozen Russian assets, for example, supposedly to invest this money in Ukraine and receive “50% of the profits from this venture.” Europeans, whose banks actually hold most of these assets, would receive nothing. European taxpayers, who currently provide almost all of the military and humanitarian support to Ukraine, are nevertheless expected to contribute $100 billion to Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia would “enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development 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,” according to the plan. This is no surprise: Putin
has spoken
of “several companies” positioning themselves to resume business ties between his country and the United States.
In March, the
Financial Times
reported on one of these negotiations. Mattias Warnig—a German businessman and former Russian spy who has close links to Putin and is under U.S. sanctions—has been seeking a back channel to the Trump administration through U.S. investors who want to reopen the Nord Stream 2 natural-gas pipeline, part of which was blown up by Ukrainian saboteurs early in the war. One American familiar with the plan told the
Financial Times
that the U.S. investors were essentially being offered “money for nothing,” which is, obviously, an attractive prospect.
[
Phillips Payson O’Brien: Trump’s devastating plan for Ukraine
]
Other details of the business negotiations carried out by Witkoff and Dmitriev remain secret. Ukrainians and Europeans, who would pay the military and economic price for this plan, deserve to know them. Above all, American citizens should be asking for the details of any business negotiations now under way. This plan has been proposed, in our name, as a part of U.S. foreign policy. But it would not serve our economic or security interests. So whose interests would it serve? Which U.S. companies and which oligarchs would benefit? Are Trump’s family members and political supporters among them? The arrangements on offer should be public knowledge before any kind of deal is signed.
For a decade, Russia has been seeking to divide Europe and America, to undermine NATO and weaken the transatlantic alliance. This peace plan, if accepted, will achieve that goal. There is a long tradition of great powers in Europe making deals over the heads of smaller countries, leading to terrible suffering. The
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
, with its secret protocols, brought us World War II. The Yalta agreement gave us the Cold War. The Witkoff-Dmitriev pact, if it holds, will fit right into that tradition.
