Navigating a precarious Peace: Inside the US Push for a Ukraine Resolution – and the Deep divisions Within
The search for an end to the brutal conflict in Ukraine has entered a especially fraught phase,marked by a complex and often opaque US-led initiative that has sparked both hope and deep concern among Kyiv and its European allies. While the Biden administration publicly maintains unwavering support for Ukraine, behind closed doors, a controversial 28-point plan – reportedly originating with input from Russia – is gaining traction, raising questions about the direction of US policy and the potential for a negotiated settlement that could demand meaningful concessions from Ukraine.
As a seasoned observer of international diplomacy and security, I’ve witnessed firsthand how these delicate negotiations unfold. What’s happening now isn’t simply a matter of finding common ground; it’s a high-stakes game of influence, internal US power struggles, and a basic disagreement over the terms of a just and lasting peace.
The Core of the proposal: A Challenging Pill for Kyiv
The plan, as it’s currently understood, proposes a series of measures that would fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape. These include forcing Ukraine to cede substantial territory to Russia, drastically reducing its military capabilities, and permanently barring its entry into NATO. Crucially, the proposal also envisions a re-establishment of economic ties between Russia and the United States – a move that would signal a significant shift in Washington’s approach to Moscow.
This is a far cry from the unwavering commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity that has been the public face of US policy.Understandably, Kyiv and its European partners are deeply skeptical. Their position is firm: any discussion of territorial concessions can onyl occur after a complete cessation of hostilities along the current line of contact. Furthermore, they are demanding robust security guarantees, ideally mirroring NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause, to ensure Ukraine’s future security.
Trump’s Shadow and the Rise of Backchannel Diplomacy
The current situation is inextricably linked to the return of Donald Trump to the White House.His initial pledge to “stop the fighting in a matter of days” set an unrealistic expectation and opened the door to a flurry of backchannel diplomacy.
Early attempts at mediation were marked by dramatic episodes.Reports of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being sharply rebuked by Trump and his allies, including Senator J.D. Vance, during Oval office meetings, underscored the tensions. A hastily arranged summit between Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August further fueled European anxieties, with some leaders suspecting Putin held undue influence over the former president – a suspicion only amplified by Putin’s enigmatic smile captured by cameras.
Subsequent attempts to broker a second summit, this time in Budapest, were thwarted by Senator Marco Rubio, who, after speaking with his Russian counterpart, determined that Moscow hadn’t softened its demands. However, this apparent victory for a hawkish stance proved to be a mirage.
The Witkoff-Driscoll Channel and the Shifting Power Dynamics
While Rubio was publicly seen as a bulwark against Russian concessions, in the background, real estate mogul Tom Witkoff and michael Driscoll were quietly assembling the 28-point plan. This revelation has led to a growing perception that rubio was displaced as the primary US interlocutor on Ukraine, with Witkoff and Driscoll taking center stage.
The involvement of Vance’s deputy national security advisor, Andy Baker, further highlights Vance’s influence within the administration. Driscoll, previously focused on technological reform within the US military based on lessons learned from the drone warfare in Ukraine, has now become the key interface with European officials.
Conflicting Signals and a Fractured Narrative
The messaging surrounding the plan has been deliberately ambiguous, adding to the confusion. Rubio initially claimed the proposal was a US initiative “based on input from the Russian side,” carefully framing it as a negotiating framework. However, Trump himself muddied the waters, stating on NBC that the proposal was “not my final offer,” suggesting room for further negotiation – a statement that contradicted Driscoll’s earlier assurances.
This inconsistency reached a boiling point when Trump publicly lamented Ukraine’s “ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS” on social media, revealing his frustration with Kyiv’s resistance.
The Road Ahead: Switzerland and the Direction of US Policy
The coming days will be critical.Talks in Switzerland, involving US, ukrainian, and potentially European representatives, will determine the fate of the 28-point plan. The question remains: will the US prioritize a swift resolution, even at the cost of Ukrainian sovereignty, or
