Trump's November "peace plan" was written by incompetent people on a napkin

From the Obozrevatel:

"How to get Putin to make a "goodwill gesture" and why was the peace plan written on a napkin by incompetent professionals? Interview with Melnik 

Tatyana Gayzhevskaya, November 26, 2025

Not peace plans – neither the American nor the European version – but the military defeat of the aggressor country, Russia, could be the best way to end the war for at least decades. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA by Oleksiy Melnyk, co-director of foreign policy programs and coordinator of international projects at the Razumkov Center. 

- The so-called "Trump peace plan" includes provisions for reducing the Ukrainian army to 600,000 and a permanent ban on NATO membership. The plan allegedly grants Ukraine powerful security guarantees, but doesn't specify what exactly these guarantees are. The United States could recognize Crimea and Donbas as Russian territory, and so on. What is your assessment of this plan?

First of all, I think it's important to clarify the terminology. Everyone calls it a plan, but it would be more accurate to call it a draft plan. Basically, what's been made public—I don't know how reliable it is—reminds me of notes someone jotted down on a napkin. There are Russian and Steve Witkoff influences behind this plan, but I don't see any serious preparation behind it. It doesn't look like a plan at all, or even a draft plan.  

It is possible to analyze it point by point and show why it is illogical, why it does not correspond to the lofty goal that is declared – a ceasefire and the restoration of sustainable peace.

What does the plan actually include? Russian demands, supported by Trump and unfortunately, have almost become his own ideas. This is extremely dangerous, given that Trump will obviously insist on it. First, the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions currently controlled by Ukraine. In principle, even this point is negotiable, as it currently looks like a unilateral withdrawal of Ukrainian forces to the administrative border of the Donetsk region. There's talk of demilitarization and a neutral zone, meaning Russia is simply being given this remaining territory, which it cannot occupy for four years.

Why would it be negotiable? For example, if this proposal were about both the Ukrainian and Russian sides withdrawing their armed forces to the borders of the Donetsk region, meaning Ukraine withdrawing its forces westward, while Russia withdraws its forces entirely eastward, up to the internationally recognized border, thus demilitarizing the Donetsk region. These issues could be discussed if they were about bilateral compromises. But here we see simply a set of Russian demands, presented as a proposal from Trump.

- Please note that this American version of the plan or notes sometimes mentions Europe, but as I understand it, no one asked Europe whether it agreed to these points. What do you think the European Union's position could and should be in the current situation, when the United States is effectively playing on the side of the aggressor?

We need to talk about how Europe, as an independent player, is being ignored in this regard. But there are also some rather strange passages about NATO. It feels like they were written not by a key NATO member, but by a non-NATO state. For example, when it comes to some supposedly new right to station fighter jets on Polish territory. This demonstrates the professional incompetence of those writing them.     

Next, they're proposing that NATO abandon further expansion. How can Washington, where the NATO Treaty was signed, one of whose founding principles guarantees the right of a European country that shares its values ​​and is willing to assume responsibility for the security of the European space, make such a statement? This is an ultimatum to NATO, and this ultimatum is being issued by a key NATO member.

There are a number of paradoxes and absurdities there, indicating that these are Russian ideas voiced by Americans, or that they are the work of Trump administration officials who are completely incompetent.

Regarding Europe, we remember that infamous lecture J.D. Vance gave at the Munich Security Conference. The Trump administration absolutely doesn't see Europe as an independent player. Their first sentence is a moral lecture to Europe, trying to downplay its role, and the next sentence is demanding that Europe pay for American policy and European security. But that's not how it works. As the saying goes: he who pays the piper calls the tune. If you demand that Europe assume greater financial responsibility, then obviously you have to offer some rights and powers in parallel. All of this seems very unattractive and unrealistic...

President Zelenskyy said he was refraining from any radical comments. And rightly so. Ukraine must now demonstrate extreme flexibility so that if Trump unleashes further criticism and irritation, it doesn't fall primarily on Ukraine. It would be preferable for Europe, those European leaders who know how to persuade Trump or at least dampen his outbursts of anger and pendulum swings toward Russia, to take on the role of opposition to the American plan.

- Russia's military defeat is sometimes cited as an alternative to peace plans, which could be the best guarantee of security for Ukraine. What is your opinion on this?

Indeed, this would be the best way to end the war and create the basis for long-term peace not only in Ukraine but also on the European continent. I'd cautiously say at least for the next decade, or until 2036. Why that year? Because that's when Putin's presidential term, I do not even know which number this term is, will end.      

If by that time they don't feed him some kind of pill so that he dies, or, God forbid, he lives to 150 years old, which he has been very fond of talking about lately, then in principle, with the change of Putin or with his departure, physical or political, Russia will have some kind of chance.

What we're talking about is a convincing military defeat, which doesn't necessarily mean the rout of the Russian army, but rather a demonstration of the impossibility or inadvisability of using military methods to realize geopolitical ambitions. This is the most optimal way to demonstrate to Russia that it has not achieved and will not achieve its "special military operation" goals by military means. This is what constitutes a military defeat..."