Jonah Goldberg: Leaked ‘wish list’ for peace in Russia-Ukraine war is hardly America First
Last week, an intriguing 28-point “peace plan” for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war emerged, reportedly devised in Miami by Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, along with special envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterpart Kirill Dmitriev. Almost immediately, the plan drew criticism, with many labeling it a “Russian wish-list.” This skepticism intensified following revelations that the leaked document had been poorly translated from Russian, leading Secretary of State Marco Rubio to describe it as a “wish-list for the Russians” during a closed-door session with senators. As the situation evolved, Rubio appeared to distance himself from the plan, indicating that he had taken control of the Ukraine portfolio from Witkoff and announcing that a new strategy was in the works.
The original plan, which many critics argue does not align with American interests, has sparked a significant debate about U.S. foreign policy in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Supporters of the “America First” ideology often contend that aiding Ukraine is not in the United States’ best interest. However, the article argues that this perspective is misguided, emphasizing that Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses a direct threat to America and its allies. The piece underscores the historical and ongoing aggression of Russia, from meddling in U.S. elections to supporting authoritarian regimes worldwide, framing the conflict as not just a geopolitical struggle but also a moral imperative for the U.S. to support Ukraine.
Moreover, the article posits that aiding Ukraine is not only a matter of national honor—given past assurances made by the U.S. regarding Ukraine’s security—but also a strategic necessity. By supporting Ukraine, the U.S. can weaken Russia’s military and economic standing while avoiding direct military engagement. The original plan, however, would have provided Russia with territorial concessions and sanctions relief, undermining U.S. interests and NATO’s unity. As Rubio prepares to unveil a new plan, there is hope that it will prioritize America’s strategic goals and support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. Jonah Goldberg, the article’s author, emphasizes the need for a clear and principled approach to foreign policy that reinforces U.S. alliances and counters authoritarian threats.
Last week, a 28-point “peace plan” for the Russia-Ukraine war surfaced. It was apparently fleshed out in Miami over
cocktails
by President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Witkoff’s Russian counterpart Kirill Dmitriev.
Many critics immediately derided it as a “Russian wish-list.”
That was before we discovered that the version which was leaked – probably by Dmitriev – had literally been
poorly translated
from Russian. In a closed-door session with senators, Secretary of State Marco Rubio even
described
it as a “wish-list for the Russians” and “not the administration’s plan.” On his way to Geneva for peace talks, Rubio
scrambled
to deny he ever said that.
But all of that is apparently moot now. What seems to have happened, amid all the chaos, is that Rubio had pried the Ukraine portfolio away from Witkoff. By Tuesday, Rubio revealed there is a whole new plan anyway.
This is good news, because the original plan wasn’t in America’s best interest.
I believe American foreign policy should put America first. But I don’t subscribe to “America First” foreign policy, because that’s a label slapped on anything Trump wants, whether it’s in his personal interest or the country’s.
People who embrace the slogan “America First” generally believe that helping Ukraine isn’t in America’s interest. I think they’re wrong.
Because Vladimir Putin’s Russia is America’s enemy.
This isn’t nearly as controversial as you might think if you only get foreign policy analysis from MAGA influencers on social media. Russia allies itself with our
adversaries
, in China, the Americas and the Middle East. This policy is deeply rooted in Russian history and in President Putin’s nostalgia for Russian “greatness.” But if it matters, there’s also a doctrine behind it, the
Primakov Doctrine
, which holds that Russia should do everything it can to constrain and contain America and NATO.
Russia has been
mucking about
in the internal affairs of the U.S. and its allies for
nearly
a
century
. In recent years it allegedly tampered with electricity grids,
elections
and
cyber systems
. It funded psyop
campaigns
–
using useful idiot influencers
and willing volunteers alike – to
pump
racism, antisemitism and sinister conspiracy theories into domestic politics here and abroad. “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,”
according to NATO
.
If you’re of a more idealistic bent,
Russia
is also a murderous authoritarian regime that oppresses its own people and visits heinous war crimes on its neighbors.
In short: They’re the bad guys.
That’s why there’s a compelling moral argument for helping Ukraine resist a lawless and brutal invasion that has taken perhaps a million lives and resulted in the kidnapping of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to be brainwashed. Our national honor is on the line as well, given that America encouraged Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for “security assurances” in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Legally, assurances aren’t “guarantees,” but they’re not nothing either.
Put morality and national honor aside. A cold-eyed, America-First strategist might argue that the slaughter of Ukrainian troops – and civilians – is in our interest if it comes at the cost of bleeding Russia’s military, economy and global prestige.
No, we shouldn’t send American troops to fight Russia. That is a strawman raised by opponents of helping Ukraine at all. But weapons? Intelligence? Why not? Many of NATO’s weapons were built for the purpose of fighting Russia. If Ukraine can use them to that end, it’s the best of both worlds. This leaves out that we can – and do – sell many of these weapons, either to Ukraine or our European allies who then transfer them.
And it’s been working. Russia didn’t have the bandwidth to save its puppet regime in Syria. It didn’t – couldn’t – ride to the rescue of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah either. The Russian economy is a
mess
, with near double-digit inflation despite insanely high interest rates.
And yet, this original “peace deal” would
rescue
Russia, ceding it territory, including all of the Donbas, that it hasn’t been able to win militarily. It would provide Russia sanctions relief, invite it back into the G8 and hobble Ukraine militarily and politically. It describes America as a “mediator” between Russia and NATO, despite the fact that NATO is an alliance created and led by America. There is no greater strategic goal for Russia than dividing America from her NATO allies. All of this in exchange for the “expectation” that Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine again later.
Hopefully, Rubio has come up with something more in America’s interest, and less in Russia’s.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is
@JonahDispatch
.
