Negotiations between the US, Ukraine and Europe over the 28-point proposed framework reportedly has produced agreement on 19-points, which will be presented at sometime in the near future to the Russians. However, despite a ton of positive spin coming out of Geneva (where the talks were held) the actual substance of the supposed agreement is a dumpster fire.
The first point of confusion is the authorship of the 28-point plan. The Washington Post reported on Monday that:
Rubio “made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said during the Halifax International Security Forum. “It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan.”
Rubio denied the senators’ statements hours later, writing on X: “The peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations.”
State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called the senators’ comments “blatantly false.” In separate statements, Pigott and the White House said the plan “was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.”
Here is one problem: the “Russian input” did not come from any Russian official… It was reportedly provided by Kiril Dimitriev, who is an informal advisor to Vladimir Putin but holds no weight within the Russian Foreign Ministry nor in the Russian National Security Council. Moreover, as I reported in my previous analysis of the 28-point document, there is very little in that purported peace plan that actually reflects Russia’s stated positions on a variety of issues.
Yuri Ushakov, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin’s foreign policy advisor, commented on the proposed US peace plan for Ukraine during an interview today (Monday, 24 November) with the state news agency TASS. Ushakov, who coordinates Russia’s international relations and has been involved in key diplomatic efforts (including the 2022 Istanbul talks), described the plan as partially aligned with Moscow’s interests, but emphasized that no formal negotiations have occurred. So far, the only document that Russia has reviewed was the one presented at the meeting in August at the Anchorage, Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin.
According to Ushakov, Russia is familiar with an original version of the US peace plan (stemming from the August 2025 Alaska summit between Putin and President Trump), but “no specific negotiations” have taken place on it. He noted multiple versions are now circulating, but his comments focused on the one reviewed by the Kremlin. Ushakov added that the Kremlin views the EU’s alternative peace framework as “completely unconstructive” and unsuitable, as it fails to meet Russia’s core interests, such as weakening NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe.
Donald Trump is too weak politically to secure a deal that will be acceptable to Russia without igniting a firestorm among Republican and Democrat legislators, not to mention the strong opposition from the Europeans and Ukrainian officials. Here’s just a sample of the pushback:
U.S. lawmakers worried the initial proposal would further destabilize global security by rewarding Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine — raising questions over why Trump needs the deal signed so urgently, even if it comes at the expense of American and Ukrainian interests.
“Some people better get fired on Monday for the gross buffoonery we just witnessed over the last four days,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) posted on X on Saturday. “This hurt our country and undermined our alliances, and encouraged our adversaries.”. . .
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the former majority leader, on Sunday cautioned against the Trump administration “pressuring the victim and appeasing the aggressor” as a way to bring about peace. He questioned “which difficult concessions” the U.S. had asked of Russia.
“Allies and adversaries are watching: Will America hold firm against aggression or will we reward it?” McConnell wrote on X.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia) sharply criticized the early plan, telling ABC on Sunday morning that “Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler [before] World War II looks strong in comparison” and that the plan resembles a set of “Russian talking points.”
An overwhelming majority Washington politicians and European leaders are still in denial about the dire situation confronting Ukraine… They genuinely believe that Russia is under great pressure from a supposedly failing economy and staggering losses on the battlefield. Both are lies. Russia is wasting no time in continuing to attack and destroy Ukrainian fortifications and electrical infrastructure all along the line of contact. Putin, along with Kremlin spokesman Peskov and Ushakov, continue to feign interest in a diplomatic solution, but understand that Trump will fail to produce a proposed deal that Russia would find acceptable.
If Ukraine was winning on the battlefield and Russia was failing economically and militarily, we would not be seeing the panicked effort by the US and Europe to secure an agreement with Moscow that would end the fighting… Hell, the West, along with Zelensky, would be popping champagne corks and celebrating.
Once Rubio comes up with a proposal that satisfies Ukraine and placates Europe, it will be presented to Putin’s Foreign Ministry, who will make all of the appropriate diplomatic gestures, carefully read the document, and then politely reject it or call for a meeting between Trump and Putin. All of this will take time, and Russia is in no hurry to secure an agreement because of its accelerating success on the battlefield.
Reprinted with permission from Sonar21.
from Ron Paul Institute Featured Articles
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment