From the Dialog, Dec 11, 2025:
"Kyiv rejects Trump's new "peace plan": Media finds out what the US wants
In its updated peace plan, the US no longer demands Russia withdraw its troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, but insists that the Ukrainian army withdraw and leave a demilitarized zone there.
According to Europeiska Pravda, citing the Financial Times, and an analysis by ZN.UA, the latest version of the American plan contains a key detail: the US does not demand that Russia withdraw its troops from those territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions proposed to be included in the eastern part of the demilitarized zone. However, Ukraine is supposed to withdraw from its own positions in the Donetsk region.
A high-ranking Ukrainian source familiar with the documents states bluntly: the demilitarized zone in Donbas is being built at the expense not of Russian troops, but only of Ukrainian ones. This is a model "like that between North and South Korea," that is, a de facto freezing of the conflict on the terms of the stronger party, which this package effectively recognizes as Russia.
Trump's "new" plan: a rehash of an old document with the same spirit
Formally, the American package now consists of four documents: a basic 20-point agreement between Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and so-called "Europe," framework "assurances" on security, a separate text on NATO, and a bilateral US-Russian deal. But, in essence, as ZN.UA emphasizes, these are slightly reworked versions of Trump's famous "28 points," which initially had a distinctly pro-Russian flavor and are now simply scattered across different documents and dressed up in new packaging.
Of the truly toxic provisions, only the general amnesty "for all parties to the conflict" has disappeared. Everything else—territorial concessions, restrictions on Ukraine's maneuverability, a soft stance toward Russia—has been retained in one form or another.
Territories: Russia maintains its grip, Ukraine loses its right to force
The most pressing issue is the territorial issue. In one of the key documents, the US proposes recognizing Russia's control over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts, with the possibility of "changing their status only through diplomatic means" and without the use of force. For the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts, the current frontline is established as a de facto freeze line.
Russia is required to withdraw only from those Ukrainian territories it controls outside these five regions. After this, Kyiv and Moscow must commit not to changing borders by force. In other words, the aggressor gains legal control over foreign territories, while the victim is prohibited from fighting for their return.
Demilitarized zone and "gray zones" for Russian special services
A special topic is the demilitarized zone in the Donetsk region. The new text clarifies its size, stating that Ukrainian and Russian troops will be withdrawn behind the administrative line and will not enter this "buffer." However, it does not say anywhere that Russian special services, the FSB, and their "civilian" structures will not be present there. For the Kremlin, this is an ideal platform for pressure, sabotage, and control without official tanks and artillery.
NATO: The Door Hasn't Been Formally Closed
A clear downside of the previous version was the direct demand to formalize Ukraine's withdrawal from NATO. Now the wording has been softened; the text no longer includes the clause prohibiting accession or requiring the Alliance to "once and for all" renounce Ukraine.
However, in a separate document, the US promises that NATO "will not expand" and will not invite Ukraine to join. This is effectively a personal American veto, written in a separate document and duplicated in the US-Russian agreement. Thus, the door to NATO is formally left painted on the wall, but Washington promises to hand over the key to Moscow.
Security "Guarantees"
A separate section concerns security. Public rhetoric includes promises of "guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5." However, the texts focus primarily on "assurances" and "assurances," which are not legally binding and do not require parliamentary ratification. This resembles more an expanded Budapest Memorandum than genuine collective defense.
The American side reserves maximum latitude in interpreting when exactly a Russian attack is considered "significant, deliberate, and sustained," and therefore worthy of a response. This opens up enormous scope for delays, consultations, and political gamesmanship, while Ukraine already has experience with how such "guarantees" on paper often end.
Ukraine's army is limited, Russia's is not
A separate cynical point is the limitation on the size of the Ukrainian army. The new version raises the ceiling from 600,000 to 800,000, which is presented as a concession to Kyiv. But the logic of the document remains absurd: a sovereign state that has become a victim of aggression is obliged to limit its armed forces, while the aggressor is not subject to any restrictions.
After World War II, Germany and Japan were subject to army reductions as the perpetrators of the war. Now, however, the proposal is to de facto limit the defense capability of the victim, leaving Russia free to act.
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Money
The American package also includes the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe. Its launch is expected to be under the control of a new US owner, rather than the IAEA. Ukraine is promised only 50% of the generated electricity, with the fate of the remaining percentages vaguely omitted.
Regarding restoration, the US and Europe want to create a large equity fund worth hundreds of billions of dollars and actively utilize frozen Russian assets. However, the details of the US-Russian deal stipulate that Washington intends to invest only a portion of these assets (approximately $100 billion) in the restoration of Ukraine, expecting to reap half the profits, and to channel the remaining funds into joint US-Russian projects. This means that the country, devastated by the Russian army, risks becoming a raw materials and infrastructure appendage of the new Anglo-Russian "business" to boot.
Who's bound, and who's not
The most alarming thing Ukrainian analysts are noting is that of the entire package, only the document imposing obligations on Ukraine is planned to be made legally binding. The remaining texts, including those on NATO and security guarantees, remain more vague.
A "Peace Council" chaired by Donald Trump is to oversee compliance with Ukraine's obligations. Furthermore, there's no stipulation on what will happen if Trump ceases to be US President, nor are there any real sanctions for violators. Russia, meanwhile, receives recognition of its gains, lenient conditions for "reintegration" into the global economy, and a vague commitment "not to attack its neighbors," without any real enforcement mechanisms.
A plan that rewards the aggressor and weakens the victim
A comprehensive analysis of the "new" peace plan reveals one thing: in spirit, it remains a document that enshrines the consequences of Russian aggression, legitimizes some of the seizures, closes Ukraine's real path to NATO membership, imposes weak "assurances" instead of firm guarantees, and gives the US and Russia the opportunity to profit from Ukraine's recovery.
In this scenario, Russia gains a legitimized foothold in Ukrainian regions and the chance to launch a new attack; Ukraine risks being left without some territory, a fully functional security system, and control over key resources; and the global system sets a dangerous precedent where the aggressor is rewarded and the victim is asked to submit.
Against this backdrop, the conclusion of Ukrainian diplomats is particularly stark: if such documents are signed, it will open a Pandora's box for other major predators accustomed to thinking simply: "I'm stronger, therefore you're food." "
No comments:
Post a Comment