The peace proposal circulated by the United States, emerging amid Russian battlefield advances and Ukraine’s weakening defenses, effectively formalizes Kyiv’s capitulation and exposes deep fractures within the Western alliance.
With the battlefield now favoring Moscow and the Kremlin’s objectives coming within reach, a critical question arises: what incentive does Russia have to accept Washington’s terms? The conflict, shaped by U.S. and NATO involvement and marked by political and military support, has highlighted the West’s strategic miscalculations and limitations.
Western governments, facing domestic pressures and logistical challenges, continue to commit to supporting Kyiv “to the last Ukrainian.” France, Germany, and Poland see their political narratives tied to ongoing engagement, while Trump’s approach appears more like an effort to secure a diplomatic win amid looming setbacks. The proposal, primarily crafted by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff with input from Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, reveals minimal Ukrainian contributions and aligns closely with longstanding Russian demands, with EU and UK involvement virtually absent.
Devil in the Detail!
These include de facto recognition of Russian control over Crimea and additional territories in the Donbas region (beyond current lines of control in some areas), permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and the discussion of NATO membership will be finally put to rest, with significant limitations on the size and capabilities of Ukraine’s armed forces, and provisions for protecting Russian-language and cultural rights.
In exchange, the draft reportedly offers U.S.-backed security guarantees for Ukraine, potential economic arrangements, and a framework for broader European security and U.S.-Russia relations.
In return, the proposal dangles U.S.-backed security guarantees for what remains of Ukraine, vague economic incentives, and a broader reset in U.S.–Russia relations. All that is moot, as it is already decided, the outcome, only that this and the European peace proposal serve as something of a face-saving last-ditch political gesture.
Yet from Moscow’s perspective, these offerings may appear as little more than window dressing for a Western attempt to snatch diplomatic victory from the jaws of strategic defeat—a face-saving exit after years of what Russia has consistently described as a proxy war orchestrated and sustained by Washington and its NATO allies since well before the 2014 Maidan events.
With the endgame of the conflict increasingly visible on the ground, the Kremlin must now weigh whether to lock in its hard-won gains through a negotiated freeze—or press on toward a more comprehensive resolution on its own terms. Regardless, it is doubtful if many of the provisions will be taken seriously by the Russian side, even if some kind of mutually agreed peace proposal is agreed upon. Only now we are told that Zelensky agrees to negotiate on Trump’s peace plan while Europe denounces any plan that would require Ukraine to give up the Donbas and cut the size of its army in half.
Reality on the ground!
It is the reality on the ground that is pushing the Ukrainian peace process forward, not negotiations and wishful thinking. Ukrainian and Russian media outlets are reporting that Ukraine will likely stop fighting soon, out of desperation.
The US and some of its allies see no choice but to end the military action as soon as possible to avoid a complete and irreversible collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Nonetheless, mainstream sources (propaganda) describe ongoing Russian gains as methodical and costly but do not report a full-scale Ukrainian retreat “along the entire front” or that Ukraine “will likely stop fighting soon out of desperation.”
It should come as no surprise that the populace and voters in the West do not know, and likely never will, where their money went and how this latest and earlier scams will end, who will be implicated in the corruption, which could only have been carried out on such a scale with the willing (and well rewarded) assistance of Western politicians and officials at all levels.
The proposed peace plan would also prevent the future deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine, end US military assistance (which is basically ended, on hold, due to lack of equipment to send and money to pay for it), and foreign diplomatic aircraft would be barred from landing.
Russia would be reinstated as one of the official languages in Ukraine, and the rights of the Orthodox Church would be reinstated. It is hard to fathom that such a compromise will be reached, or will be allowed to stand in practice, considering that there are so many anti-Russian hardliners in what would become Ukraine proper, or, rather, the rump state that is left of Ukraine.
But still, this will not go far enough to address the core reasons for the need for the SMO in the first place; objectives such as the de-Nazification of Ukraine will still not be accomplished. It would be like the US and its allies having won over fascist Germany and having left the Nazi system in place upon declaring victory. It is as if some countries in Europe, especially Germany and France, are reverting to their ideological roots, as such deep-rooted tendencies are being reborn.
Left to simmer
When all is said and done, and history is written, what the proposed peace deal from the US basically means is that the US is surrendering to Russia and tossing its NATO partners under the bus in the process, and for now, they will be left simmering in the pan and will be a poor meal for their voters, who are sick and tired of having been tricked into a war of convenience for the political and financial gain of so few.
Loss of Both Dignity and US Support
Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a meeting with U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in Kyiv on November 20, in which he signaled readiness to engage “constructively and honestly” on the draft, agreeing to joint work on its provisions ahead of expected direct talks with President Trump. Yet European allies have sharply criticized the plan as overly favorable to Moscow, warning it undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty without addressing root causes of the conflict.
It is clear that when all is said and done, the plan is only to try to save face, provide some time, and allow time for the leadership to escape to Israel and other points westward—to go where the siphoned-off money is already safe.
The timing underscores a harsh reality on the ground: Russian interdiction and attrition tactics have finally pushed Ukrainian defenses beyond breaking point, compounded by a major domestic corruption scandal implicating senior officials in a $100 million energy sector embezzlement scheme – revelations that have eroded public trust and complicated Kyiv’s appeals for continued, even increased, international aid.
While no widespread frontline collapse has been officially confirmed, incremental Russian gains in Donetsk and elsewhere, plus the rapidly increasing rate of Russian gains, alongside power outages from ongoing strikes, highlight Ukraine’s mounting vulnerabilities.
From Moscow’s vantage, the proposal offers a chance to formalize battlefield achievements without further escalation, though Kremlin spokesmen have downplayed new developments, insisting any accord must resolve “root causes” on Russian terms.
But as is, to be expected, the portrayal of the plan as cementing a complete Russian victory and U.S. capitulation reflects a pro-Moscow viewpoint, whereas mainstream commentary describes it as a pragmatic (even controversial) attempt to end the war through concessions, amid shifting U.S. priorities.
Pragmatic Peace with honor!
As battlefield dynamics shift in favor of Moscow and Western resolve falters under domestic pressures, the Trump plan for Ukraine risks solidifying a Russian victory, sidelining European allies, and leaving Ukraine as a weakened state reliant on Western aid for years.
For Russia, rejecting the plan could lead to increased costs, while Kyiv may secure a semblance of stability but at the expense of crucial SMO objectives. This framework underscores Russia’s leverage rather than fostering genuine compromise, representing a sobering capitulation that curtails Ukrainian hopes for full territorial recovery and highlights the failures of misguided Western support.
Meanwhile, the EU and UK have proposed their own plan, which demands Ukraine join NATO and return contested territories to Russia—a move that guarantees rejection by Moscow. Such demands are unlikely to sit well with President Trump or Vice President JD Vance.
Internal conflicts within the Trump administration also emerge, with Vance poised to abandon Ukraine, while hawkish figures like Marco Rubio seek a more favorable deal for political gain. Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked that Russia is awaiting an official response from the White House rather than engaging with fluctuating commentary from the West.
It also seems that there is a conflict within the Trump administration, with JD Vance ready to completely pull the rug out from under Ukraine, while the hawk and neocon Marco Rubio tries to arrange a deal that is better for Ukraine and will give him some political points when it takes on JD Vance in the next US election.
No wonder Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that ‘Russia would wait for official communication from the White House, rather than worry about the multiple variants touted by western media’ and the vast array of pundits.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
