US Peace Plan Asks Almost Nothing of Russia, Leaving American Officials Wondering How Ukraine Can Accept It
The latest American initiative aimed at ending the war in Ukraine is drawing intense scrutiny in Washington, where officials are struggling to understand why Kyiv would ever accept the terms being floated, the NY Post reports. The framework — crafted by President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff after conversations with Ukrainian and Russian counterparts — asks Ukraine to relinquish nearly the entire Donbas region while giving up key strategic goals.
Under the outline circulated to senior officials, Ukraine would effectively abandon its claim to Donbas, ceding territory that Russia has failed to fully control since its initial incursion there in 2014. In addition, Ukraine would halt its pursuit of NATO membership, downsize its military from roughly 900,000 troops to about 600,000, and sign off on sweeping wartime amnesty that would prevent any future prosecution of Russian war crimes.
Experts familiar with the document are warning that the terms would leave Kyiv with more losses than gains. “The proposal is a bad deal and one that the Trump administration rightfully refused to accept in the past,” Institute for the Study of War Russia program lead George Barros told The Post. He stressed that real deterrence requires “a strong Ukrainian military, foreign support to Ukraine — ideally in the form of foreign troops in-country — and a defendable frontline.”
Inside the administration, one persistent challenge in discussions with Moscow has been getting Russian representatives to even contemplate stepping back from their long-standing ambition of overtaking the whole country. As one senior U.S. official put it, “I mean, look, everyone knows Vladimir Putin wants to take the whole country. That’s his been his long-sought goal. That is something he’s made quite clear. The president is very aware of that.”
The same official argued that, on paper, the plan would impose meaningful setbacks on the Kremlin. “This plan obviously stops [Putin] in his tracks, ends the war — and also forces him to relinquish some territory, which you know is a huge loss for him and for Russia,” the source said. “And there’s some other little details in there as well that are concessions from their side too, but yeah, sort of the overall point.”
Supporters of the draft deal say some elements came directly from high-level Ukrainian input. Officials told The Post that Rustem Umerov, head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, offered “positive feedback” during recent talks with Witkoff in Miami. U.S. officials emphasized that Umerov had helped shape the contours of the proposal. “The plan was drawn up immediately following discussions with one of the most senior members of Zelensky’s administration, Umerov,” an official said. “So Umerov agreed to the majority of this plan, and he made several modifications to it, which we included and presented it to President Zelensky.”
Still, those same officials conceded that Kyiv has not locked itself into any agreement. “I don’t want to say that [Kyiv] full-heartedly … agreed to it and they’re ready to sign off. They agreed to the majority of the plan,” the source said.
One of the most controversial components — a full and unconditional amnesty for all parties — was, according to a senior White House official, an idea that surfaced directly from Ukrainian leadership. Before that, the draft had included stricter accountability measures. “Ukraine will conduct a full audit of all aid received and create a legal mechanism to recover any errors found and punish those who illegally profiteered from the war,” the source said, describing the original text.
But Umerov publicly rejected claims that he had approved, watered down, or embraced any part of the proposal. In a post on X, he wrote, “Media reports about alleged ‘approvals’ or ‘removal of points’ have nothing to do with reality. These are examples of unverified information that arose outside the context of the consultations.” He added, “We are thoroughly working through our partners’ proposals within Ukraine’s unchanging principles — sovereignty, the safety of our people, and a just peace.”
Requests from The Post seeking Kyiv’s official clarification on Umerov’s position have gone unanswered.
Some senior U.S. officials say the contradictions surrounding Umerov’s role raise questions. One official called it “fishy” that he would appear to distance himself from language that Ukraine itself had suggested. “You will see that point 26 gives amnesty to all parties, meaning both Russia and Ukraine. OK, that was not the idea of the United States; the Ukrainians inserted that language,” the official said.
According to that source, U.S. drafters had preferred stronger oversight instead: “The US had [that] ‘Ukraine will conduct a full audit of all aid receipts and create a legal mechanism to recover any errors found and punish those who illegally profited from the war’ — that’s something the American people want to see. That’s also something the Russians do support.” But, the official added, “The Ukrainians rejected that, and they said, ‘No, we’d rather give amnesty to both sides of the war.’”
{Matzav.com}
