To End a War
Analyzing the 28 points of the joint US-Russian draft framework peace proposal
Please hit the like and re-stack buttons at the top of the page as this helps my writing get more visibility. Thank you.
The war in Ukraine has now lasted as long as the massive one between the USSR and Germany in WW2. This fact shocks no one today, but if you predicted in 2022 that it would have lasted this long you would have been laughed out of any room where you said this out loud.
Punditry is one of the casualties of this brutal war. Who could have predicted that Russia would launch an invasion with a relatively light touch in terms of force? Who could have envisioned the war lasting as long as it has already? Who would have thought that the Russian economy would hold on this long in the face of a very punishing sanctions regime? There’s no shame in admitting that you made bad calls, and I certainly concede that I did not see the ‘light touch’ coming.
One prediction that I made only moments after the Russians attacked on February 24, 2022 still holds up…at least in my opinion. I think the facts as they exist now support the following:
Big Winner: USA
Small Winner: Russia
Small Loser: EU
Big Loser: Ukraine
There are two wars being fought simultaneously. In the war of attrition between Russia and Ukraine, the Russians clearly have the upper hand, and the tempo of their advances is noticeably increasing month over month. In the larger war between the USA and Russia, the Americans won on the first day of the invasion because Moscow finally opted to choose one of the only two possible routes to counter US/NATO designs in Ukraine. The Russians could have not invaded and permitted NATO to set up shop in their neighbour to the southwest and accept a strategic defeat, but instead they chose to invade to forestall such an outcome and have been forced to accept a bloody war, a divorce from Europe, and sanctions package after sanctions package.
The net effect of this ongoing conflict will be the agreement as to where the new border between Russia and the Transatlantic alliance (read: US Empire) will be. What we can be certain of is that whatever remains of Ukraine will definitely be in the western orbit, meaning that Russia will lose an important piece of real estate. Compensation for this loss will be some Ukrainian territory and possibly an agreement that Kiev will never be permitted to join NATO. Barring a complete collapse of Ukraine’s defense that permits Russians to stroll into Kiev and points further west, this is about as good an outcome as Moscow could hope for. For Ukraine, it’s a disaster.
For the Americans, it’s a victory. They clearly knew that Ukraine could not win this war, as even Obama conceded that Russia has “escalation dominance” and that for Moscow this conflict is an existential matter, unlike for the USA. Russia has been bled out to a fairly significant degree, it has been separated from Europe for the time being, and Europe’s entire economy has been reoriented to service the USA. The only problem that the Americans have is how to wrap this conflict up (so that they can move their primary focus to containing and strangling a surging China) without losing face. The Ukrainians have done a remarkable job in defending their country, something that the Americans have strategically benefited from. But at what cost to Ukraine?
When I say “the Americans”, it needs to be understood that there are different factions under this name. At present, Donald Trump resides in the White House. Alongside him is Congress, and also the CIA and other various intel outfits. Add to this mix business interests that are licking their lips at exploiting a post-war Ukraine. Not all of these factions are aligned, and some are at cross-purposes. Many have spent up to three decades working on putting a US puppet in the Kremlin, and they did come close with Yeltsin in his second term…but then along came Vladimir Putin to foil that plot.
It will be very, very difficult to convince this faction to accept any peace deal with iron-clad bilateral and international agreements, because it would put an end to their regime change ops. This faction will do whatever it takes to wait Trump out, whether it means subterfuge domestically, or even abroad with willing accomplices like former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Many individuals in government and in positions of influence in the USA at present are no doubt paying lip service to Trump’s demands for a peace deal, all the while looking forward to November 2028. China hawks want to wrap this war up and head out east, but Russia hawks would see any firm peace deal as fumbling the ball on the five yard line.
Russia’s predicament is even more complex: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has described the USA as “agreement non-capable”, but at the end of the day it too needs to end this war, and to accomplish this it must come to a deal with the Americans. Not only that, but any deal requires iron-clad guarantees that cannot be undone by a future US administration. How does one agree on such an important matter with an opposing party they perceive as 100% untrustworthy? The Kremlin looks at any peace offering from the USA with justified suspicion, a fact that makes any real peace deal all the more difficult.
All of the points mentioned above must be factored into the equation when looking at the joint US-Russian framework peace deal proposal that US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday. This is a 28 point plan to end the war and keep it from breaking out again in the future. It merits a closer inspection not just because of its content, but especially because it is a joint draft. This means that there is buy-in from the two major belligerents (Russia, USA) even if it is not a “take it or leave it” document. This leaves us with the question: why now?
From Politico:
Driscoll, who met with Zelenksyy, told a group of European ambassadors afterward that the continent couldn’t match the Russian defense industry’s output, so Ukraine won’t be able to claw back territory. The time for a settlement had arrived, he said, according to one diplomat, a European official in the room and a person familiar with the meeting. Some of Driscoll’s conversation, including his message about industrial capacity, has not been previously reported.
“No deal is perfect, but it must be done sooner rather than later,” Driscoll said, according to the European official at the meeting. U.S. armed forces “love” Ukraine and stand by its military, Driscoll said, but “the honest U.S. military assessment is that Ukraine is in a very bad position and now is the best time for peace.”
It’s been a grinding war of attrition between the Russian and Ukrainian forces on the ground, a situation that favours the side with more resources and shorter logistical routes. This means Russia, and this rule of warfare is being proven yet again as the Russians continue to make very slow, but notable, progress on various fronts.
However, the pace of Russia’s advances are picking up in certain spots, one being Northeastern Zaporizhzhia/Southeastern Dnipro regions:
It is here where the Russians are in a position to break out as there is little standing in the way between its forces near Huliapolye and the city of Zaporizhzhia on the Dnieper River. This worrying development no doubt lends credence to Driscoll’s negative assessment of Ukraine’s present position.
It is in the interests of the USA to forestall any Russian breakthrough that could lead to a collapse of the entire front or even large parts of it. This is common sense. The question that must be asked is the following: is the American intention regarding this framework peace deal intended to halt the Russian advance so that Ukraine can regroup? Or is it actually sincere? The answer is simple: it depends on which faction of USGov you ask.
As for the Russian side, they need to engage for the sake of PR.
According to the Russian president, Moscow confirmed during the talks that it agreed with the peace proposals. However, he added that after the Alaska meeting there was a pause from the US side, which he attributed to Ukraine’s rejection of Trump’s draft. This is why the “modernized plan” containing 28 points appeared later, Putin said, adding that Moscow has the document.
“I believe it could also form the basis of a final peace settlement. But this text is not being discussed with us in substance,” Putin said.
Zelensky seems to be aware of the gravity of the situation (if this isn’t kayfabe):
“This is one of the most difficult moments in our history [...] Currently, the pressure on Ukraine is one of the hardest. Ukraine may now face a very difficult choice, either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.”
One thing that immediately leaps out is that the EU has been entirely ignored in this draft proposal. Not only was Europe not asked to contribute to the framework plan, it seems that Europe’s leaders were caught completely off-guard about the entire proposal:
European leaders are preparing an emergency call to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to end the war in Ukraine.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz cancelled a scheduled appearance to join the discussion, which will also include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron.
The 28‑point plan caught European capitals off guard. Leaders were not directly involved in the U.S. effort and learned the details only after the document was made public.
Sidelining Europe works to the advantage of both Russia (which sees the EU as just a collection of American poodles) and those in the USGov who actually want to conclude a deal. Those in favour of extending the conflict want Europe to meddle on their behalf, and this includes a sizable portion of those in power in the USA at present. European meddling would muddy the waters and attempt to torpedo any possibility of a deal being reached between Washington and Moscow.
Multiple EU diplomats and officials said they feared the proposals, from Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, would wreck their chances of the loan proposal being agreed by the EU’s 27 governments. European leaders had been hoping to finalize the so-called “reparations loan” deal at a crunch summit next month.
A former French official, granted anonymity like others to discuss sensitive matters, said the Witkoff idea “is, of course, scandalous.”
“The Europeans are exhausting themselves trying to find a viable solution to use the assets for the benefit of Ukrainians and Trump wants to profit from them,” the person said. “This proposal is likely to be rejected by everyone.”
………..
One senior EU official in Brussels scoffed at the idea and noted that whatever he wants, Trump has no power to unfreeze assets held in Europe. An official from an EU government resorted to colorful swearing to express their dismay, while a senior EU politician said: “Witkoff needs to see a psychiatrist.”
The EU is being treated as an afterthought.
Reuters has reported that Trump wants Kiev to sign this framework deal by Thursday of next week, and if Zelensky doesn’t then: “The United States has threatened to cut intelligence sharing and weapons supplies for Ukraine to press it into agreeing to the framework of a U.S.-brokered peace deal, two people familiar with the matter said.” This is a serious threat, assuming that it is real in the first place and not a psy-op.
28 Points For Peace in Ukraine
Let’s look at each of the 28 points in the proposal, but please do bear in mind that these are a basis for direct negotiations and not set in stone:
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed
This is a very generic statement that is open to all sorts of interpretation….but only up to a point. What this means is that Russia must treat Ukraine as an independent state that is permitted its own system of governance, armed forces, security, ability to negotiate and enter into international agreements, and so on. It would be a recognition that Russia has lost rump Ukraine permanently (despite it already recognizing its independence).
Winners: Ukraine, USA, EU
Loser: Russia
2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled
This is a very big deal, because it would require a new security arrangement framework that would stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok. This is a very time intensive process, one that could be spoiled by those seeking to run out the clock on Trump. It doesn’t just include Ukraine, it also refers to the outstanding issues of South Ossetia in Georgia, and Transnistria in Moldova.
A successful conclusion of such a wide-ranging security agreement would also mean that NATO’s original purpose (i.e. to keep the Russians out) would be achieved, opening up the question as to whether that organization is still required (see below for more on this).
Winners: Ukraine, Russia, EU, US China Hawks
Losers: US Russia Hawks and regime change enthusiasts on both continents
Potential Winners: Moldova, Georgia
Unknown: South Ossetian separatist state, Transnistria separatist state
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further
These are worded as promises, and later in the document we see the carrots and sticks attached to them. Suffice it to say that Russia would be very, very happy to agree to this as it views NATO’s eastward push to its borders as an existential matter.
This should give (some) peace of mind to the Balts, and effectively inform Russian minorities in those states that Moscow will not be coming to attach them to the Motherland.
It also raises the question of NATO’s continued raison d’etre. There are fears that Trump wants to pull the USA out of NATO, and such a multilateral agreement could provide fuel for the fire.
Winners: Russia, EU, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo
Losers: NATO, Serbian ultranationalists
4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
This is very straight forward and speaks to the two previous points.
Winners: USA, Russia, EU
Losers: Russia Hawks, NATO
5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees
Update: A separate document details the terms of the security guarantee. The U.S. and its NATO allies would treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire “transatlantic community.”
This is little more than NATO-by-stealth, something that Moscow is adamant cannot be permitted to occur. It does fulfill Ukraine’s consistent message that it requires strong western security guarantees before it agrees to any final peace deal.
What this point means is that Ukraine is indirectly absorbed into Transatlantic security structures without it formally becoming a NATO member. Expect Russia to strongly reject this point and insist on a watered-down set of security guarantees for Kiev. This will be a key sticking point, and the devil will be in the details. For example, how many European states would be willing to provide such a guarantee to go to war against Russia over Ukraine?
Winners: Ukraine, USA, NATO
Losers: Russia, EU
6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel
Note: Ukraine’s army currently has 800,000-850,000 personnel, and had around 250,000 before the war, according to a Ukrainian official.
I am instantly reminded of Versailles and how Weimar Germany was officially limited to an army of 100,000 soldiers. That limitation didn’t work back then, and such a proposal wouldn’t work in the future in Ukraine either as it would be open to all sorts of abuse if not strictly monitored. 600,000 is also very, very large in number. It would make Ukraine’s Army twice the size of the Germany’s for example.
This is one of the many points that Russia will push back on, because it would be very difficult to not just accept this number, but also to monitor it.
Winners: Ukraine, USA, NATO, EU
Loser: Russia
7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future
Point 7 retroactively proves that NATO enlargement to include Ukraine is one of, if not the major reason for this war breaking out, despite protests in the western camp to the contrary. Selling this to Kiev will be incredibly difficult in terms of optics, even though Ukraine has for some time now agreed that a set of strong security guarantees from the USA (and Europe) would suffice. One problem is that Ukraine’s Constitution includes accession to NATO as a state objective. This means that the Ukrainian Constitution would have to be amended, and that is not a certainty.
Winners: Russia (overwhelmingly), EU
Losers: Ukraine (overwhelmingly), USA, NATO