What We Know (or Seriously Reported) So Far
According to Axios reporting (cited by multiple outlets):
- The 28-point plan has been drafted in consultation with senior Russian officials.
- It is organized into four broad “buckets” or themes:
- Peace in Ukraine
- Security guarantees
- Broader European security
- Future U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine
- Steve Witkoff (Trump’s envoy) is leading the effort; he has met Kirill Dmitriev (a Russian envoy) in multiple sessions.
- The plan’s treatment of territorial issues — especially in eastern Ukraine — remains unclear according to the leak.
- The White House has begun “quiet briefings” to European partners, suggesting they are trying to build wider support.
Also, from other outlets and commentary:
- There is talk of freezing frontlines “at or near current territorial lines.”
- According to The Guardian, a draft may de facto recognize or at least tolerate Russian control over parts of Ukraine (though the full legal status is fuzzy in the leak).
- There might be sanctions relief for Russia, especially in the energy sector.
- As part of security guarantees, Ukraine could receive a “robust security guarantee” from a group of European countries, though exactly how that would work (peacekeeping force, enforcement, whether the U.S. is directly involved) is not clearly spelled out.
- There are proposals (in earlier or related Trump-era plans) for a demilitarized buffer zone, possibly policed by European troops (e.g., British, Europeans) and not NATO, or at least not U.S. boots.
- Reports suggest that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations might be limited or delayed (“blocking Ukraine’s NATO membership” or long deferral).
- There’s talk (from press) of a U.S.-Ukraine trade deal, possibly involving Ukraine’s natural resources (e.g., lithium) as a form of compensation or economic leverage.
What Might Be the “Secrets” / Hidden or Controversial Elements
Given what’s reported, plus what would strategically make sense (from the perspective of Russia and a U.S. administration wanting to broker a deal), here are some of the more secretive or deeply consequential elements that might be part of this plan — or risk being part of it:
-
Territorial Concessions to Russia
- If the plan “freezes” frontlines near current positions, that could mean some Ukrainian territory remains under Russian control permanently (or semi-permanently).
- There could be legal or quasi-legal recognition (de facto or de jure) of Russian control in certain occupied areas (e.g., Crimea, parts of Donetsk/Luhansk). This is one of the most sensitive issues for Ukraine.
- Such recognition would be deeply controversial for Ukraine and its allies, and could be framed by Russia as a “win.”
-
Security Guarantees That Favor Russia
- The “security guarantees” bucket may hide major concessions: perhaps limits on Ukraine’s future military (size, deployment), or restrictions on foreign (especially NATO) presence. While public reports say some such Russian demands are not in the draft, secret annexes could include them.
- Russia might demand legally binding guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO (or at least delay it for a very long time). That would align with long-standing Kremlin demands.
- There may be mechanisms for European peacekeepers or a “coalition”—but how binding or enforceable they are could be weak.
-
Sanctions Relief for Russia
- Part of the deal could involve phased lifting or easing of energy-related sanctions. This would help Russia economically (especially its oil/gas revenues).
- There might be broader economic cooperation in other sectors, possibly giving Russia financial or trade incentives in exchange for peace.
-
Demilitarized / Buffer Zones
- The plan might propose setting up a “buffer zone” between Russian and Ukrainian forces, possibly policed by European troops (but notably without U.S. troops).
- This buffer could be very large (reports have mentioned hundreds of miles in some leaks).
- Such a buffer effectively consolidates Russian gains and makes it difficult for Ukraine to re-launch offensives into certain regions.
-
Long-term U.S.–Ukraine Economic Deal
- There are claims (from India Today) that the plan could involve Ukraine making “major concessions” economically — such as giving the U.S. access to or control over its natural resources (e.g., lithium).
- There may be a deal where Ukraine repays past U.S. military aid (or “pays back” in kind through resource deals). India Today reported something like this: Ukraine compensating the U.S. via its mineral reserves.
- Such a deal could look like a “payback” for U.S. support, but could also be criticized as exploitative on Ukraine’s part.
-
U.S.–Russia Strategic Reset
- Beyond Ukraine, the plan reportedly includes a framework for long-term U.S.-Russia relations. Putin and Trump’s teams might want to reset ties: maybe lifting some diplomatic or economic sanctions, re‑engaging in cooperation on certain geopolitical issues.
- There might be clauses on arms control, or future security architecture in Europe (not just Ukraine) that are favorable to Russia, or at least acceptable.
-
European Security Architecture Changes
- The plan could call for a new European security arrangement, possibly revisiting or reworking existing NATO or post-Cold War frameworks.
- There might be legally binding guarantees to Russia about NATO's “eastward expansion” or limits on deployment in certain areas.
- A “high-level enforcement or peacekeeping” mechanism might be proposed, but it could lack teeth — meaning it may not deter future aggression strongly.
-
Diplomatic Mechanisms to Lock in the Deal
- There may be “secret annexes” or side letters that detail how guarantees are to be enforced, who pays for peacekeeping, and how disputes will be handled.
- The deal could require a summit between Trump and Putin (or the formation of a trilateral body) to supervise implementation.
-
Risk of Back‑Door Legitimization of Occupation
- If the plan provides any form of recognition (even de facto) to Russia’s control in parts of Ukraine, that could legitimize large-scale territorial losses for Ukraine.
- This could set a dangerous precedent: that military conquest is rewarded through negotiation (if Ukraine agrees).
-
Leverage Against NATO / EU
- The U.S. might use the plan to pressure European allies: “You want a stable Europe? Support this deal.”
- Russia could gain long-term leverage over Europe if it gets security guarantees and sanctions relief, while Europe may be forced to commit troops or funding to peacekeeping missions.
-
Domestic Political Interests
- For Trump, brokering “peace” could be a major political win — especially if he can present himself as the dealmaker.
- For Russia, it's a way to consolidate gains and reduce isolation, while pushing for a return of great-power status.
Why Some of These Might Be Kept Secret or Underplayed
- Domestic Backlash: If the deal involves large Ukrainian territorial concessions, it would be politically explosive for Kyiv to accept, and very unpopular domestically and among its Western backers.
- Credibility Issues: Russia may want to keep certain things vague (e.g., the exact nature of “security guarantees”) so it can back out later or interpret them in its favor.
- European Reluctance: Some European countries may not want to commit large troop contributions or money unless they believe in strong guarantees — so the U.S. and Russia may not want to show their full hand until getting European support.
- Enforcement Risk: How to enforce the guarantees — who monitors, who pays, who intervenes — is tricky; disclosing too much detail risks exposure of weak spots.
- Geopolitical Leverage: The U.S. may be using the negotiation publicly and secretly to reassert its influence in Europe, to outmaneuver NATO or EU actors, or to reset relations with Russia on favorable terms.
Risks & Downsides If This Plan Is Real
- Ukraine Might Lose Significant Territory: If it's a “freeze” rather than a full rollback, Ukraine could permanently lose parts of its land.
- An Unbalanced Peace: Security guarantees to Ukraine may not be strong or enforceable; Russia could retain military leverage.
- Sanctions Relief Could Fuel Russia’s War Machine: If sanctions, especially energy sanctions, are relaxed, Russia could regain economic strength.
- European Burden: Europe could be asked to provide troops or funds for a peacekeeping force, but may not want a long-term commitment.
- Legitimizing Aggression: The deal could be seen as rewarding conquest, weakening the deterrent effect against future aggression.
- Implosion Risk: If one side (Russia or Ukraine) feels the deal is unfair, it might collapse, reigniting conflict.
Strategic Motivations Behind Such a Plan
-
For Trump / U.S. Side:
- A “peace broker” role could boost Trump’s international image.
- Reducing U.S. burden / exposure in Ukraine while pushing Europe to take more responsibility.
- Resetting U.S.-Russia ties might help on a number of fronts — arms control, global politics, energy.
-
For Russia:
- Consolidating gains from the war without having to militarily push all the way.
- Getting formal or informal recognition for territories.
- Easing economic pain via sanctions relief.
- Undermining NATO expansion risk on its borders via guarantees or architecture changes.
-
For Europe:
- A stable peace might reduce the long-term security and financial costs of supporting Ukraine.
- But Europe is also wary: how to maintain deterrent power while agreeing to guarantees.
Why This Is a Big Deal
- If real, this is not just a ceasefire plan, but a comprehensive geopolitical framework — touching not only Ukraine, but European security architecture and U.S.-Russia relations.
- It could reshape how the war is “ended”: not by a decisive Ukrainian military victory, but via a diplomatic settlement with compromises.
- The implications for NATO, EU policy, and future great-power relations are huge.
- For Ukraine, any deal like this would carry existential risk: losing land, autonomy, or security guarantees that might not be bulletproof.
My Assessment: What Could Really Be Going On
- It’s quite plausible that Trump’s team is genuinely trying to negotiate a peace framework — not just for PR, but because he (and his allies) believe a “freeze + guarantee” might be more realistic than a total Russian withdrawal.
- Russia is likely engaging because it sees leverage: battlefield gains, economic relief, and a chance to reshape security guarantees in Europe in its favor.
- Whether Ukraine ultimately accepts such a plan depends heavily on the details (which are deliberately unclear) — especially what it gives up vs what guarantees it actually gets.
- There is a high risk that such a deal could be unbalanced or favor Russia more, especially if enforcement is weak, or if guarantees are more symbole.
No comments:
Post a Comment