28-Point Ukraine-Russia Peace Plan
Foreign governments have to deal with rival US factions that keep policies secret and work with foreign powers. Rubio initially distanced himself from the plan in private conversations with senators, allegedly calling it a "Russian wish list". When this became public, he was forced to align his public statements with the White House's position that it was an administration plan, a move that Vance highlighted on social media to Rubio's embarrassment.
The suggestion that the original was in Russian stems from several "odd phrases" in the English document. For instance "It is expected that Russia will not invade": This construction is considered unusual in English, but resembles typical Russian phrasing. Use of "ambiguities" and "to enshrine": These words and the overall syntax in several parts of the document sound more natural in Russian than in English. A point on "Nazism" in the plan reflects the Russian narrative used to justify the war.
"It is expected" (as in "It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries...") translates to the Russian verb form ozhidayetsya. The use of this passive voice construction is a common form in Russian legal and diplomatic texts but sounds unusual and weak in English, which typically uses more direct language for such agreements. This passive construction is common in Russian but considered stilted in English. "Ambiguities" (in the phrase "All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled") translates to neodnoznachnosti. Critics note that using this specific word in an English-language diplomatic document is peculiar and not standard usage. "To enshrine" (as in "Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution...") translates to zakrepit. This word choice is also cited as an example of a direct, less idiomatic translation from Russian.
"To enshrine" (as in, "Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO...") translates to zakrepit. This word choice is also cited as an example of a direct, less idiomatic translation from Russian. "Without a cause firing": One analysis points out the awkward English of a clause mentioning an exception for a "rapid coordinated military response" if Russia invades again, and another specific clause regarding Ukraine firing a missile at Moscow "even unintentionally". The phrasing "without a cause firing" is seen as a direct and unnatural translation of a Russian legal turn of phrase.
European, Ukrainian and US envoys, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, met in Geneva 23 November 2025 to discuss US President Donald Trump's proposal to end the war in Ukraine. A counter-proposal was drafted by the so-called European E3 powers – Britain, France and Germany. "The current version of the document, although still in the final stages of approval, already reflects most of Ukraine's key priorities," negotiator Rustem Umerov said, adding: "We look forward to further progress throughout the day." The new document proposes that Ukraine's military be capped at 800,000 "in peacetime" rather than a blanket cap of 600,000 proposed by the US plan. It also said "negotiations on territorial swaps will start from the Line of Contact" rather than pre-determining that certain areas should be recognised as "de facto Russian" as the US plan suggests.
The differing stances of Vice President J.D. Vance represents the populist-nationalist, non-interventionist wing, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio's background as a traditional hawk, who has adapted to the new administration's pragmatic approach, represents a more establishment view that still distrusts Russia. Their differences between Vance and Rubio on the war in Ukraine will likely impact the Republican Party, acting as a bellwether for the party's future foreign policy direction, intensifying the internal rivalry for the 2028 presidential nomination, and presenting a challenge for party unity as it navigates a transition away from traditional hawkishness to a more isolationist approach.
Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are widely seen as the leading potential Republican candidates for the 2028 presidential nomination, with their contrasting approaches to foreign policy, particularly concerning Ukraine, highlighting a dynamic described as a potential "brutal" rivalry. Reports suggest a fierce, albeit private, competition for President Trump's favor and the 2028 nomination, with the president himself floating the idea of an "unstoppable" Vance-Rubio ticket or a primary contest between the two. Trump seems to encourage the rivalry, likely to ensure both men remain loyal. The eventual nominee will likely be heavily influenced by Trump's preference and the candidate's ability to maintain the MAGA base.
Vance is a vocal torchbearer of the MAGA movement's non-interventionist wing, known for his skepticism of aid to Ukraine and an "America First" approach. He has previously questioned the level of U.S. support and its alignment with American interests. Vance has stated that "any peace settlement is going to require some significant territorial concessions from Ukraine" and that the current front lines are likely where new borders would be drawn. Vance has stated that it is "time for them [Ukraine and Russia] to either say yes, or for the U.S. to walk away from this process"
Rubio has a background as a more traditional Republican hawk, though he has adapted his public stance to fit the administration's policy. He has been involved in drafting and discussing peace plans, at times expressing skepticism that Moscow has made substantive changes to its position. In 2022, he stated the U.S. should "support them as long as they are willing to fight" and criticized those who called the war a mere "territorial dispute". He also co-sponsored the NYET Act to provide critical support to Ukraine. Rubio has emphasized the need for a swift end to the "stalemate war". He has indicated the U.S. will not continue to be involved if "no progress" is made in peace talks.
The Vance-Rubio dynamic is a crucial indicator of the Republican Party's future identity, a battle between a new isolationism and an older, albeit tempered, form of international engagement. This competition is expected to become "brutal" in the coming years, as each man bids for the spotlight and the mantle of Trump's successor. Rubio's more reserved and pragmatic style as Secretary of State has been seen as easier for some foreign allies to work with than Vance's abrasive, disruptive approach. The party's ultimate direction could affect its relationship with NATO allies and other foreign partners, who are watching the dynamic closely.
14-Points vs 28-Points
When President Woodrow Wilson unveiled his Fourteen Points in January 1918, he was not merely outlining terms to end World War I. He was attempting to recast the entire architecture of world affairs. His plan — idealistic, sweeping, and deeply rooted in a belief that diplomacy could replace the cycles of militarism — became a benchmark against which future peace proposals would be measured. More than a century later, Donald Trump appears eager to step onto that same historical stage.
Trump’s announcement of Twenty-Eight Points to resolve the war in Ukraine is, at first glance, a modern exercise in diplomatic problem-solving. But the arithmetic itself is doing some of the rhetorical work. By doubling Wilson’s number, Trump signals an unmistakable intention: his plan is not simply an intervention in a troubled region but a bid for a legacy that rivals, and perhaps surpasses, one of the most consequential presidential peace frameworks of the twentieth century. Where Wilson presented a blueprint for ending the Great War, Trump casts his proposal as a comprehensive route out of a conflict that seemed to have hardened into a grinding and ambiguous stalemate.
To be sure, the contexts could hardly be more different. Wilson addressed a world fractured by imperial rivalries and trench warfare, while Trump seeks to influence a conflict shaped by post-Soviet geopolitics, technological asymmetry, and great-power recalculations. Yet the symmetry between Fourteen and Twenty-Eight is unmistakably intentional. It places Trump’s proposal in direct dialogue with Wilson’s precedent, inviting comparisons between the two presidents’ visions for global stability.
Whether Trump’s plan ultimately achieves traction is a question for policymakers and historians alike. But his strategy is clear: by invoking, echoing, and even numerically amplifying Wilson’s approach, he aims to position himself not only as a negotiator in a contemporary crisis but as a figure seeking entry into the longer ledger of statesmen who have attempted to redefine the shape of peace itself. In the end, the Twenty-Eight Points are more than a policy document. They are a statement of ambition—an attempt to claim a place in a diplomatic tradition that began long before him and will undoubtedly continue long after.
Of the many peace proposals that have emerged from the crucible of major conflict, few present a starker contrast in philosophical underpinnings and vision for the international order than Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points of 1918 and the implicit, often contradictory, set of principles that might be distilled from Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach, which we may provocatively term a "Twenty-Eight Points." The former, articulated in the waning days of the First World War, was a monumental, if flawed, endeavor to establish a "peace without victors." The latter, emerging a century later, represents a modern incarnation of the Melian Dialogue’s brutal realism, where power is its own justification and the dynamics of the strong and the weak dictate outcomes. Wilson’s vision, for all its idealism, sought to build a system to transcend the old logic of power politics, while the Trump approach constitutes a deliberate and forceful return to it, framing international relations as a realm where might makes right.
Wilson’s Fourteen Points: The Architecture of a Peace Without Victors
Emerging from the unprecedented carnage of the Great War, Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points was a radical document. Its central, revolutionary premise was that the coming peace should not be a punitive settlement imposed by victors upon vanquished, but a just and lasting order that would prevent future conflicts. This was a direct repudiation of the kind of peace that had historically followed major wars, such as the Treaty of Paris in 1815 or the one that would, ironically, be partially imposed on Germany at Versailles.
The Points were meticulously designed to address the perceived causes of the war. Open diplomacy (Point I) sought to eliminate the secret treaties that had entangled Europe. Freedom of the seas (Point II) and the removal of economic barriers (Point III) aimed to create a interdependent world where commerce, not conquest, was the path to prosperity. The call for arms reduction (Point IV) was a nod to the devastating arms race that had preceded the conflict. Most significantly, the Points championed the principle of self-determination (implicit in Points VI-XIII), proposing the redrawing of European borders along ethnic and national lines to dismantle the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and grant sovereignty to submerged nations.
The capstone of this new order was the fourteenth point: "A general association of nations... for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." The League of Nations was to be the mechanism that would institutionalize this "peace without victors," a forum where disputes could be adjudicated rather than settled on the battlefield. It was an attempt to replace the anarchic, balance-of-power politics of the 19th century with a rules-based system, grounded in law and collective security. While the effort ultimately foundered on the rocks of domestic American politics and European vindictiveness, its ambition was undeniable: to create a world where the weak would be protected by a community of nations, and the strong would be constrained by a common set of rules.
The Melian Dialogue: The Antithesis of Wilsonianism
To understand the nature of a "Trumpian peace," one must first look to Thucydides’ *History of the Peloponnesian War* and the famous dialogue between the Athenian generals and the magistrates of the tiny island of Melos. The Athenians, at the height of their power, demand Melos’ submission. The Melians appeal to justice, neutrality, and the gods. The Athenians dismiss these appeals with cold, brutal logic:
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
This statement is the purest essence of realpolitik, stripped of all pretence. It asserts that in the realm of international affairs, morality, justice, and established rules are irrelevant when they conflict with the interests of a superior power. Power is self-justifying; the ability to impose one’s will is the only legitimate authority. The dialogue ends with the Athenians laying siege to Melos, eventually executing the men and enslaving the women and children. The lesson is not that this is morally right, but that this is, in the Athenian view, the immutable law of nations. It is a world without a higher authority, where security is derived solely from one’s own strength and the prudent calculation of stronger forces.
Trump’s 28 Points: A Modern Melian Peace
The "28 Points" document from the Trump administration is founded on transactional bilateralism, nationalist rhetoric, and a skepticism of multilateral institutions. This framework constitutes a wholesale rejection of the Wilsonian project and a revival of the Melian logic.
- Sovereignty as Absolute Autonomy : Unlike Wilson’s vision of pooled sovereignty in a League, the Trump principle holds national sovereignty as absolute and non-negotiable. International institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Trade Organization are viewed not as pillars of a rules-based order, but as constraints on American power and infringements on its freedom of action.
- Transactionalism Over Alliances : Alliances are not sacred bonds underpinned by shared values and collective security, as in the Wilsonian-Kantian tradition. They are transactional relationships to be constantly re-evaluated based on a immediate cost-benefit analysis. The demands for increased defense spending from NATO allies and the treatment of partners as potential "freeloaders" reflect this.
- Economic Nationalism as Power : Where Wilson sought to lower trade barriers to foster interdependence, the Trump doctrine saw trade as a zero-sum competition. Tariffs and trade wars were tools not just for economic gain, but for demonstrating and exercising power, forcing weaker nations to capitulate to American demands.
- The Primacy of Unilateral Power : The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, among others, signaled a preference for unilateral action. The ability to "do what we can" as the strongest nation was prioritized over the tedious process of multilateral negotiation and compromise.
The 28 Points
The Trump administration's 28-point peace plan, presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on November 20, 2025, represents the most comprehensive American attempt to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Drafted by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in collaboration with Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner, the plan establishes a framework that fundamentally reshapes the territorial and political landscape of Eastern Europe. The proposal begins with an immediate cessation of hostilities along current battle lines, contingent upon both sides accepting the full memorandum and withdrawing to agreed positions.
The territorial provisions of the plan constitute its most controversial elements. The framework calls for American and international recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto Russian territory, marking a dramatic reversal of longstanding U.S. policy regarding forcible territorial changes. Ukrainian forces would be required to withdraw from the portions of Donetsk Oblast they currently control, with this area becoming a demilitarized buffer zone that would still be internationally recognized as Russian territory. The oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along current lines of contact, effectively partitioning these regions and allowing Russia to maintain control over strategic cities like Mariupol and preserve its land bridge to Crimea. Russia would relinquish control over any territories it holds outside these five specified regions.
The military restrictions imposed on Ukraine represent another fundamental pillar of the agreement. Ukraine's armed forces would be capped at 600,000 personnel, representing approximately a 25 percent reduction from current levels. The country would be permanently barred from NATO membership and prohibited from hosting foreign troops or military bases on its soil, effectively vetoing any European peacekeeping force. Ukraine would lose access to Western long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory and would be forbidden from using force to reclaim territories seized by Russia. These military limitations would be permanent and legally binding under the agreement.
In exchange for these concessions, the plan offers Ukraine a NATO-style security guarantee, whereby the United States and European allies would view any future Russian attack on Ukraine as an attack on the transatlantic community, triggering a decisive coordinated military response. However, this guarantee would be nullified if Ukraine were to invade Russia or launch missiles at Moscow or St. Petersburg. The security framework includes provisions for stockpiling designated weapons systems that would be automatically provided to Ukraine if Russia violates the agreement, though the specific nature of these weapons remains undefined.
The economic reconstruction provisions allocate substantial resources for Ukraine's recovery. One hundred billion dollars from frozen Russian assets would be directed toward rebuilding war-torn areas, with the European portion of frozen Central Bank of Russia funds being returned while the remainder would be invested in a joint U.S.-Russian fund. The United States would establish a Ukraine Development Fund focused on technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence investments, while also cooperating with Ukraine to rebuild and modernize its gas infrastructure. Europe would be expected to raise an additional 100 billion dollars for reconstruction efforts. The plan guarantees Ukraine's right to join the European Union with fast-tracked accession, while ensuring Russia will not obstruct Ukraine's commercial use of the Dnipro River or interfere with grain shipments through the Black Sea.
The political and cultural provisions of the agreement impose significant changes on Ukraine's domestic landscape. Russian would become a second official language, with all restrictions on the Russian language and the operations of the Russian Orthodox Church being lifted. Both countries would be required to implement educational programs promoting cultural tolerance and eliminating what the plan terms "racism and prejudice." All Nazi ideology and activities would be explicitly rejected and prohibited, addressing a key Russian propaganda point. Ukraine would be required to hold presidential elections within 100 days of the agreement, implying potential political change from the current Zelensky administration. Both countries would agree to abolish discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
The diplomatic framework establishes comprehensive non-aggression agreements between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, declaring all ambiguities of the past thirty years to be settled. Russia would commit not to invade neighboring countries, while NATO would pledge not to expand further. The agreement mandates dialogue between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve security issues and create conditions for de-escalation. The plan includes Russia's readmission to the Group of Eight, reversing its expulsion following the 2014 annexation of Crimea. The United States and Russia would agree to extend nuclear non-proliferation treaties, including the START I Treaty, while Ukraine would confirm its non-nuclear status under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Sanctions relief represents a major incentive for Russian cooperation. The lifting of economic sanctions would be discussed and agreed upon in stages, with the United States entering into long-term economic cooperation agreements with Russia covering energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, and rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic. These business arrangements would provide Russia with pathways back into the global economy while offering American companies access to Russian resources and markets. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be relaunched under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, with electricity production split equally between Russia and Ukraine.
The humanitarian provisions establish mechanisms for addressing the war's human toll. All remaining prisoners and bodies would be exchanged on an "all for all" basis, with all civilian detainees and hostages, including children, being returned. A family reunification program would be implemented, and measures would be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims. Most controversially, all parties involved in the conflict would receive full amnesty for their wartime actions, effectively granting immunity for potential war crimes and agreeing not to pursue future claims or grievances.
The implementation and enforcement mechanism centers on a Peace Council headed by President Donald Trump, which would monitor and guarantee compliance with the agreement. Sanctions would be imposed for violations, though the specific nature and triggers for these sanctions remain undefined. The agreement would be legally binding, with the ceasefire taking effect immediately after both sides withdraw to agreed starting positions. The plan explicitly models its implementation structure on the recent Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement, positioning Trump as the personal guarantor of the peace process.
Russian Perspectives and Incentives
Russia's apparent enthusiasm for the 28-point plan stems from its comprehensive accommodation of Moscow's core strategic objectives and maximalist territorial demands. The framework essentially legitimizes and internationalizes Russia's territorial conquests since 2014, providing de facto American recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the Donbas region. This represents a fundamental victory for Putin's vision of restoring Russian influence over territories he considers historically and culturally Russian, validating the enormous military and economic costs Russia has incurred since launching its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
The territorial provisions grant Russia control over approximately 20 percent of Ukraine's pre-2014 territory, including some of Ukraine's most industrialized and resource-rich regions. The Donbas contains significant coal reserves and heavy industry infrastructure, while control over parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia secures Russia's land bridge to Crimea and dominance over the Sea of Azov. The requirement for Ukraine to withdraw from areas of Donetsk it currently controls, which would then be designated as demilitarized but still recognized as Russian territory, represents a gain beyond current battlefield realities. This territorial expansion provides Russia with strategic depth, economic resources, and a permanent foothold for potential future operations.
The military restrictions placed on Ukraine effectively neutralize it as a future security threat to Russia, achieving through diplomacy what Russia failed to accomplish through its initial military campaign. The permanent ban on NATO membership eliminates the prospect of Western military infrastructure on Russia's southwestern border, addressing what Putin has consistently portrayed as an existential threat to Russian security. The prohibition on foreign troops and bases in Ukraine ensures that no Western military presence can be established even outside formal NATO structures. The cap on Ukraine's military forces at 600,000 personnel, combined with restrictions on long-range weapons, fundamentally limits Ukraine's ability to pose any conventional military challenge to Russia in the future.
The cultural and political provisions satisfy Russia's ideological objectives regarding Ukraine's identity and governance. Making Russian a second official language and lifting restrictions on the Russian Orthodox Church reverses Ukrainian policies aimed at reducing Russian cultural influence, validating Moscow's narrative about protecting Russian-speakers and Orthodox believers. The requirement to ban "Nazi ideology" accepts Russian propaganda framing of the conflict as a "denazification" operation, despite the lack of evidence for widespread Nazi influence in Ukraine. The mandate for elections within 100 days opens possibilities for political change in Ukraine that could produce a more Russia-friendly government, especially given war weariness and the challenging terms of the peace agreement.
The economic incentives for Russia are substantial and multifaceted. The staged lifting of Western sanctions would restore Russia's access to global markets, technology, and financial systems, reversing the economic isolation imposed since 2022. The proposed long-term economic cooperation agreements with the United States in energy, natural resources, and technology sectors would provide Russia with Western investment and expertise crucial for modernizing its economy. The Arctic mineral extraction projects mentioned specifically align with Russia's strategic priorities for developing its northern territories and exploiting climate change-opened resources. Readmission to the G8 would restore Russia's seat at the table of major economic powers, reversing a key symbolic punishment from the Crimea annexation.
The amnesty provisions protecting all parties from war crimes prosecution removes a significant source of leverage and pressure on Russian leadership and military personnel. Russian officials and commanders who might otherwise face international criminal prosecution for documented atrocities would receive blanket immunity, eliminating personal legal jeopardy that could complicate Russia's long-term international rehabilitation. This provision also prevents future Ukrainian governments from pursuing legal remedies for the destruction and suffering caused by the invasion, effectively closing the book on accountability for the conflict.
From a strategic perspective, the plan allows Russia to claim victory in achieving its stated war aims while ending a costly conflict that has strained its military and economic resources. Putin could present the agreement to domestic audiences as successful completion of the "special military operation," having secured recognition of Russian sovereignty over contested territories, prevented NATO expansion, and protected Russian-speakers in Ukraine. The framework provides Russia with an honorable exit from a war that has proven far more difficult and costly than initially anticipated, while preserving and legitimizing its major territorial gains.
The security architecture proposed in the plan, while offering guarantees to Ukraine, actually benefits Russia by establishing clear red lines and conditions that would nullify Western obligations. The provision that Ukraine attacking Russia or launching missiles at major Russian cities would void security guarantees gives Moscow significant leverage to claim provocations and justify potential future actions. The prohibition on Ukraine using force to reclaim occupied territories essentially freezes Russian gains permanently, removing any pressure for future territorial concessions. The dialogue mechanism between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, provides Moscow with a formal channel to influence European security arrangements and potentially divide Western allies.
American Rationales and Strategic Calculations
The Trump administration's support for this framework reflects a fundamental recalibration of American strategic priorities and a transactional approach to international relations that prioritizes concrete American interests over abstract principles of international law. The plan represents a decisive shift from the Biden administration's approach of sustained military support for Ukraine, instead seeking rapid conflict termination even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty. This realpolitik calculation stems from multiple converging factors that make the current proposal attractive to Trump's foreign policy team.
The immediate cessation of hostilities serves American interests by ending a conflict that has consumed enormous diplomatic attention and financial resources without directly threatening core U.S. security interests. The Trump administration views the approximately 56 billion dollars in military assistance provided to Ukraine since February 2022 as an unsustainable drain on American resources that could be better deployed for domestic priorities or competition with China. Ending the war quickly, even on terms favorable to Russia, allows the administration to claim a major foreign policy victory and fulfill Trump's campaign promise to end the conflict within his first days in office, albeit with some delay.
The economic opportunities embedded in the plan align with Trump's business-oriented approach to foreign policy. The proposed joint ventures with Russia in energy, natural resources, and Arctic mineral extraction offer American companies access to vast untapped resources and markets. The emphasis on technology partnerships, data centers, and artificial intelligence cooperation opens new commercial frontiers that could benefit American tech companies seeking global expansion. The reconstruction funds, while nominally for Ukraine, would likely flow significantly to American contractors and businesses involved in rebuilding efforts. The framework essentially transforms the conflict's resolution into a business opportunity for American interests.
The security guarantees provided to Ukraine, while substantial on paper, actually limit American obligations compared to potential NATO membership. The conditional nature of the guarantees, which become void if Ukraine takes certain actions, provides the United States with multiple exit ramps from future military commitments. This arrangement allows the administration to claim it has provided strong security assurances while maintaining significant flexibility to avoid future entanglement in Eastern European conflicts. The prohibition on NATO expansion removes a source of tension with Russia while relieving the United States of pressure to extend security commitments it may be reluctant to honor.
The plan's structure positions Trump personally as the guarantor and mediator of peace, enhancing his international stature and creating a legacy achievement comparable to historic peace agreements. The Peace Council mechanism, explicitly headed by Trump, ensures continued American relevance and leverage in the implementation process while providing opportunities for the president to claim credit for maintaining stability. This personalization of diplomacy aligns with Trump's preference for leader-to-leader engagement and his belief in his unique ability to negotiate with adversaries like Putin.
The framework's acceptance of Russian territorial gains reflects a pragmatic assessment that Ukraine cannot militarily recover these territories and that continued fighting would only result in further Ukrainian losses. American military and intelligence assessments apparently conclude that Ukraine's position will only deteriorate with time, making current terms better than what might be available after another year of grinding warfare. This calculation prioritizes preventing total Ukrainian collapse and preserving a viable Ukrainian state, even if truncated, over pursuing unachievable goals of full territorial restoration.
The rapid timeline demanded by the administration, initially seeking agreement before Thanksgiving, reflects both domestic political considerations and a belief that momentum is crucial for successful peace negotiations. Quick resolution would allow Trump to pivot to other priorities, particularly competition with China, which the administration views as the primary long-term threat to American interests. Removing the Ukraine distraction would free diplomatic and military resources for Indo-Pacific strategy while potentially creating opportunities for limited cooperation with Russia as a counterweight to Chinese influence.
The plan's provisions for extending nuclear arms control agreements with Russia serve important American security interests by maintaining strategic stability and predictability in the nuclear relationship. Preserving frameworks like START prevents an expensive and dangerous arms race while providing transparency into Russian nuclear capabilities. This nuclear dimension may be particularly important to Trump advisors who view great power competition through a traditional nuclear balance lens rather than focusing on regional conventional conflicts.
The moral flexibility demonstrated in the amnesty provisions and recognition of Russian territorial control reflects an administration willing to prioritize practical outcomes over principles of international law or human rights. This approach assumes that moral considerations should not obstruct deals that serve American interests, and that the perfect should not be the enemy of the achievable. The calculation appears to be that a flawed peace that stops the killing and stabilizes Europe is preferable to continued warfare in pursuit of justice or principle.
Ukrainian Red Lines and Political Non-Starters
The 28-point plan contains numerous provisions that Ukrainian officials and society consider fundamental violations of their national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic aspirations, making many elements politically impossible for any Ukrainian government to accept. The most fundamental non-starter remains the formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied territories, particularly areas not currently under Russian control. Ukraine's constitution explicitly prohibits the alienation of national territory, and any leader agreeing to such terms would face accusations of treason and likely removal from office. The requirement for Ukraine to withdraw from parts of Donetsk Oblast still under government control would mean abandoning Ukrainian citizens to Russian occupation without a fight, a betrayal that no democratic government could survive.
The permanent prohibition on NATO membership eliminates Ukraine's primary long-term security aspiration and the goal that has oriented its foreign policy since the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. NATO membership has become synonymous with Ukrainian independence and Western integration in public consciousness, and abandoning this goal would be seen as accepting permanent Russian dominance. The broader restrictions on Ukraine's sovereignty, including the ban on foreign troops and limits on military cooperation, would leave Ukraine perpetually vulnerable to future Russian aggression despite paper guarantees. Ukrainian officials have consistently stated that only NATO membership or equivalent bilateral security guarantees with automatic military intervention provisions would be acceptable.
The reduction of Ukraine's armed forces to 600,000 personnel represents an unacceptable constraint on national defense capabilities given the demonstrated Russian threat. Ukraine has mobilized its entire society for defense, and demobilization to pre-war levels while Russia maintains massive military forces would be seen as surrender. The prohibition on long-range weapons eliminates Ukraine's ability to deter future Russian aggression through credible retaliatory capabilities. Military leaders and defense experts argue that these restrictions would make Ukraine permanently defenseless, regardless of Western security guarantees that have already proven unreliable.
The elevation of Russian as an official language reverses years of efforts to strengthen Ukrainian national identity and reduce Russian cultural imperialism. Language policy has become a crucial battleground for Ukrainian independence, and mandating official status for Russian would be perceived as validating Putin's false claims about protecting Russian-speakers. The restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church's privileges is equally problematic, as this institution has been documented as supporting the invasion and serving as an arm of Russian intelligence. These cultural provisions would be seen as reimposing Russian soft power over Ukrainian society just as military resistance had begun to break those bonds.
The requirement to ban "Nazi ideology" accepts Russian propaganda framing that has been used to justify the invasion and deny Ukrainian national legitimacy. While Ukraine has no sympathy for actual Nazi ideology, this provision would likely be interpreted broadly by Russia to suppress Ukrainian patriotic symbols, historical narratives, and national heroes. The vague language could be used to prosecute Ukrainian defenders, veterans organizations, and patriotic movements, essentially criminalizing Ukrainian resistance to Russian influence. This represents an intolerable infringement on Ukrainian sovereignty and national dignity.
The amnesty provisions granting immunity for war crimes are absolutely unacceptable to Ukrainian society, which has documented extensive Russian atrocities including mass graves, torture chambers, deportation of children, and deliberate targeting of civilians. Forgiving these crimes without accountability would betray the memories of tens of thousands of Ukrainian victims and deny justice to survivors. Ukrainian prosecutors have built extensive cases against Russian officials and military personnel, and abandoning these efforts would represent moral capitulation. The provision would also protect Ukrainian collaborators and traitors, preventing the restoration of justice in liberated territories.
The requirement for elections within 100 days is problematic given that millions of Ukrainians remain displaced, occupied territories cannot participate freely, and wartime conditions make normal democratic processes impossible. Rushing elections under these conditions would likely produce illegitimate results and could be manipulated by Russian interference. The implication that Zelensky's government should be replaced adds insult to injury, suggesting that Ukraine's democratically elected wartime leadership is part of the problem rather than legitimately representing national resistance.
The economic provisions, while offering reconstruction funds, fail to address reparations for the enormous damage Russia has inflicted on Ukraine. Estimates of reconstruction costs far exceed the 100 billion dollars in frozen assets, with total damage approaching 500 billion dollars or more. The plan's focus on joint U.S.-Russian business ventures rather than Ukrainian economic recovery suggests that Ukraine would be excluded from the economic benefits of peace. The sharing of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant electricity with Russia adds insult to injury, forcing Ukraine to provide energy to its invader.
The security guarantees, while superficially attractive, contain fatal flaws from Ukraine's perspective. The conditions that would void these guarantees essentially prohibit Ukraine from defending itself against future Russian provocations or hybrid warfare. Russia could easily manufacture incidents to claim Ukrainian aggression and nullify Western obligations. The lack of automatic military intervention mechanisms means these guarantees would likely prove as hollow as the Budapest Memorandum that failed to prevent Russian aggression in 2014. Without NATO's Article 5 or equivalent iron-clad commitments, Ukraine would remain vulnerable to Russian salami tactics and gradual encroachment.
The framework's fundamental flaw from Ukraine's perspective is that it rewards aggression and establishes precedents that encourage future invasions. Accepting these terms would signal that military conquest remains viable in the 21st century and that nuclear powers can successfully extort territorial concessions from non-nuclear neighbors. This would not only doom Ukraine to eventual absorption by Russia but would destabilize the entire international order. Ukrainian leaders argue that rejecting bad peace terms and continuing resistance, even at great cost, is preferable to capitulation that would only delay ultimate subjugation.
Ukraine benefited from American intelligence, especially satellite surveillance, reconnaissance aircraft, and other classified sources. This included advance notice of incoming Russian airstrikes, alerts when bombers take off inside Russia, and information on where Russian air-defense systems are positioned. This data helped Ukraine prepare its air defenses and plan strikes on Russian air-defense units. Yet their importance is often overstated. Ukrainian officials had highlighted the value of U.S. intelligence partly for political reasons — to frame Washington as a stronger partner than it has actually been. If the US cut off intelligence, it would hurt, but it wouldn’t cripple Ukraine’s ability to fight. Kyiv can continue the war without American reconnaissance support.
Since Trump took office, the US stopped donating arms or financial aid to Ukraine’s defense. Instead, Washington sold weapons to Ukraine at a profit, which made it misleading to describe the US as a “supporter” in the traditional sense. The current system functions through the PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) initiative. This works like a bridal registry, also known as a wedding registry. This is a curated wish list of desired gifts that an engaged couple [or Ukraine] creates to guide guests [European states] in selecting presents [weapons] for their bridal shower [for purchae from the United States]. It simplifies the giving process and helps the recipients get items they genuinely want or need. Under PURL, Ukraine lists which U.S.-produced systems it needs, and then European nations finance or transfer those items. Europe sees this as a mutually beneficial arrangement: Ukraine gains access to American equipment, the US makes money, and Europe keeps Washington loosely tied to European security.
Europe's Diplomatic Dilemma
The alleged U.S. endorsement of a peace framework favoring Russian objectives has triggered a fundamental crisis within European capitals. This is not merely a policy disagreement but the materialization of a long-dreaded strategic scenario: the alignment of American power with Russian interests against the consensus of its European allies.
Key Strategic Shifts
- The collapse of the transatlantic diplomatic consensus that guided policy for decades
- Europe's position as an isolated actor in a new tri-polar power dynamic
- The urgent need for Europe to develop an assertive, sovereign foreign policy
The Collapse of Transatlantic Consensus
For years, the core of European strategy toward the United States was one of patient persuasion—a concerted effort to educate the American political establishment on the inherent threat posed by the Kremlin. Initiatives like coordinated sanctions regimes were touted as evidence that this approach was yielding results, fostering a belief that Washington could be steered toward a policy of pressuring Moscow.
This foundation has now evaporated. The revelation that U.S. policy could pivot so decisively to pressure Kyiv instead has exposed the fragility of Europe's influence and the futility of its previous diplomatic playbook. The assumption of a shared strategic outlook, the bedrock of post-war foreign policy, is no longer operable.
Navigating a Tri-Polar Power Dynamic
Europe now finds itself isolated in a reconfigured geopolitical landscape, positioned between a revanchist Russia and an adversarial United States. This is not a return to a bipolar Cold War but the emergence of a more complex and dangerous tri-polarity.
In this new reality, European nations are forced to navigate between two larger powers that are, in this context, aligned in their desire to force a Ukrainian capitulation. The political and diplomatic battle is, for the moment, decisively lost. The collective West, as a unified actor, has ceased to exist on this issue, leaving Europe to contend with both an external military threat and an internal crisis of alliance credibility.
The Imperative for Sovereign Posture
The immediate European response is likely to be one of public consternation followed by a rapid, though painful, strategic reassessment. The fundamental question facing European leaders is whether they can muster the political will and resources to act as an independent power center.
This would require not only maintaining but significantly increasing military and economic support for Ukraine without American leadership, developing credible security guarantees outside of NATO structures, and potentially leveraging European economic power to counter both Russian aggression and American diplomatic pressure. The alternative—acquiescing to a peace that effectively rewards aggression—would fundamentally undermine European security for a generation.
Europe stands at a critical juncture where it must either assert itself as a genuine geopolitical actor or risk becoming strategically irrelevant in a world increasingly shaped by great power competition. The U.S. alignment with Russian interests on Ukraine, while a severe shock, may ultimately serve as the catalyst for the strategic autonomy Europe has long sought.
"The Triumph of the Weak"
The analogy to Vietnam exposes the fatal flaw in the simplistic "strong always win" doctrine by providing a historical case study where perceived strength, measured in sheer military and economic power, failed catastrophically against a "weaker" opponent. Let's unpack this logic and its implications. The premise that "Russia is stronger than Ukraine and so will be the inevitable victor" is based on a narrow, almost 19th-century calculus of power. It counts tanks, missiles, population, and landmass. It is the logic of the Melian Dialogue, which, we must remember, ended with the physical destruction of Melos. However, this logic ignores the critical, intangible elements that determine the outcome of modern conflicts:
- Political Will: Strength is not just a material resource; it is a psychological and political one. Ukraine has demonstrated a national will to exist that has proven, thus far, stronger than Russia's will to conquer. A nation fighting for its survival, mobilized by a clear cause, can generate a resilience that an army of conquest, plagued by ambiguous motives and internal dissent, cannot match.
- Morale and Motivation: The Ukrainian volunteer soldier defends her home. The initial Russian conscript was often unsure why he was there. This asymmetry in motivation is a critical multiplier of combat effectiveness that raw power indices fail to capture.
- The Nature of Modern Warfare: In the age of the smartphone and the Javelin, a decentralized, agile, and highly motivated force, equipped with advanced technology from sympathetic allies, can negate the advantages of a centralized, lumbering military bureaucracy. This is the lesson of insurgencies from Vietnam to Afghanistan.
The Vietnam precedent is "The Triumph of the Weak". By any traditional metric of "strength," the United States was overwhelmingly superior to North Vietnam. The United States possessed the world's largest economy, most advanced military technology, and a global logistical network. North Vietnam was a predominantly agrarian, developing nation. If the "strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must," the war should have been a swift American victory. Instead, it was a humiliating American defeat.
- The Asymmetry of Will: For the U.S., Vietnam was a theater in the Cold War, a "domino" to be stabilized. For Hanoi, it was a existential struggle for national unification and independence, the culmination of a century of anti-colonial resistance. Their will to endure suffering and sacrifice was absolute.
- The Political Dimension: The North Vietnamese and the Vietcong understood that their battlefield was not only in the jungles of Southeast Asia, but also in the living rooms of America. They waged a war of attrition designed not to defeat the U.S. military in a conventional sense, but to break American political will. They understood that in a democracy, public support is a strategic center of gravity. They succeeded.
The lesson is clear: Inevitability is a myth. What appears to be a foregone conclusion based on material strength can be overturned by resilience, strategy, and a superior will. To suggest that Ukraine must capitulate because Russia is "stronger" is to ignore the very lesson of Vietnam: that the calculus of war is far more complex. The call for Ukraine to sue for peace to "avoid further needless suffering" is a humanitarian argument that, in this context, becomes a tool of coercion. This modern version of the Athenians telling the Melians that resistance is futile and will only lead to their destruction has two fatal flaws:
- It Legitimizes Aggression: It places the moral onus for stopping the violence on the victim of aggression, rather than the aggressor. The logical conclusion is that any powerful state can use violence to seize territory, and the international community's response should be to pressure the weaker state to surrender to avoid a bloodier fight. This creates a perverse incentive for war and makes the world infinitely more dangerous.
- It Assumes a "Peace" is Inherently Desirable: A peace dictated by Moscow would not be a peace; it would be a punitive diktat and a temporary ceasefire. It would involve the cession of sovereign Ukrainian territory, the subjugation of millions of people, and the likely dismantling of the Ukrainian state. The "suffering" of war would be replaced by the suffering of occupation, oppression, and national dismemberment. The bloodshed would not have been "avoided," only deferred and transformed.
The worldview that reduces international relations to a simple binary of "strong" and "weak," and assumes the victory of the former is inevitable, is not just amoral — it is historically illiterate. The Vietnam War stands as a monumental testament to its error. To apply this flawed logic to Ukraine is to make a critical miscalculation. It mistakes Russia's initial advantages for inevitable victory, just as the U.S. did in Vietnam. It underestimates the power of national identity and the will to resist. And it advocates for a "peace" that would not end conflict, but would reward aggression, shatter the international order, and set a precedent that would guarantee more war in the future. The true lesson of Vietnam is not that the weak should surrender, but that the strong are not always what they seem, and that the will of a people defending their homeland is a force that can defy the most grim of material predictions.
Peace by Diktat
The Trump administration's 28-point peace plan represents a dramatic intervention in the Russia-Ukraine conflict that fundamentally reshapes the strategic landscape of Eastern Europe. While the proposal offers a pathway to ending immediate hostilities and provides substantial reconstruction resources, it does so by essentially validating Russian territorial conquest and imposing severe constraints on Ukrainian sovereignty. The framework's reception illustrates the vast gulf between American pragmatism, Russian ambitions, and Ukrainian principles, suggesting that genuine peace remains distant despite diplomatic efforts.
The plan's ultimate failure or success will depend on whether Ukrainian society can be pressured or persuaded to accept terms they currently view as capitulation, whether Russia can be trusted to honor agreements limiting future aggression, and whether the United States can maintain credible security guarantees over the long term. The answers to these questions will determine not only Ukraine's fate but also the future of the international order's fundamental principles regarding territorial integrity and the inadmissibility of conquest. The 28-point framework, whatever its immediate diplomatic prospects, has already succeeded in crystallizing the stark choices facing all parties and the profound compromises required for peace in a conflict that has challenged the post-Cold War European security architecture.
The chasm between Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Trump’s implicit "Twenty-Eight Points" represents a fundamental schism in American thought about its role in the world. Wilson, for all his failings and the ultimate collapse of his vision, pointed toward a future where power would be tamed by law and community. He sought to build a system that would protect the weak from the arbitrary will of the strong, a system where a "peace without victors" could ensure that no nation would be so humiliated as to seek revenge.
The Trump approach, by contrast, is a conscious reversion to a pre-Wilsonian, Thucydidean reality. It is a peace not of reconciliation and rules, but of dominance and diktat. It is a "Melian peace," where stability is maintained not by consent and shared principles, but by the constant, grim demonstration that the strong will do what they can, and the weak, in the face of overwhelming power, will have no choice but to do what they must. Where Wilson sought to construct a republic of nations, the Trump doctrine accepts, and indeed champions, the law of the jungle. The tragedy is not that this logic is new, but that it is ancient—and its re-emergence signals the unraveling of a century-long, albeit imperfect, project to create something better.
To characterize Trump's "28 Points" as a "peace of the vanquished" and a "diktat imposed on the helpless losing side" reveals the profound irony and tragedy of this posture. While Wilson sought to avoid creating a vanquished party, the Trumpian framework effectively turns the entire world into a potential Melos, where even formal allies are treated not as partners, but as defeated rivals who must accept the terms of the strong.
The Anatomy of a Diktat
A diktat peace, like the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany, is characterized by several features that are absent from a negotiated settlement:
- Unilateral Formulation: The terms are set by one side, with little to no genuine input from the other. In the Trumpian worldview, this manifests in policies crafted in isolation—withdrawing from treaties, imposing tariffs, making demands—and then presented as non-negotiable ultimatums. The "deal" is not a mutually agreed-upon contract but a set of conditions to which the other party must adhere.
- The Illusion of Negotiation: Much like the Athenians who offered the Melians a choice between submission or destruction, the process involves a brutal form of "negotiation" where the weaker party's only agency is to choose which form of loss it will accept. The "art of the deal" in this context is not compromise, but the art of coercion—identifying leverage and applying maximum pressure to force capitulation.
- Absence of Mutual Benefit: A "peace without victors" seeks to create a stable system that benefits all, believing that the security of one is intertwined with the security of all. A diktat seeks to extract maximum benefit for the victor, with no regard for the stability or well-being of the vanquished. The focus is on winning, often defined in narrow, transactional terms (trade deficits, monetary contributions), rather than building a sustainable order.
In Trump's Melian peace, the category of "the vanquished" is fluid and expansive. It is not limited to a single nation defeated in a hot war.
- Traditional Allies: NATO partners and other long-standing allies were frequently framed as adversaries in an economic war. They were portrayed as "freeloaders" who had exploited American generosity. The demand was for them to pay up or face the consequences—a classic ultimatum that cast them in the role of delinquent vassals, not sovereign partners. The desired outcome was their submission to American demands for increased financial contributions and policy alignment.
- Economic Competitors: Nations like China were treated not as complex strategic competitors requiring a blend of deterrence and diplomacy, but as entities that had "cheated" and needed to be brought to heel. The trade war was a campaign of coercion, an attempt to impose a diktat that would force structural changes in the Chinese economy on American terms.
- The International System Itself: The most profound "vanquished" entity in this framework is the post-WWII, Wilsonian-inspired liberal international order itself. Institutions like the WTO, the UN, and multilateral climate agreements were treated as hostile structures designed to constrain American power. Withdrawing from or undermining them was the act of a victor dismantling the system of a defeated rival, to be replaced by a new order based on bilateral power dynamics.
The central flaw that Wilson identified: a peace imposed on the vanquished is inherently unstable given the humiliation and resentment it breeds, which become the seeds of future conflict.
- With Allies: Forcing allies to comply through threats erodes the trust and shared values that are the true foundation of an alliance. It transforms a coalition based on mutual interest into an empire based on tribute, fostering resentment and encouraging strategic hedging. An ally that feels vanquished is no longer a reliable ally.
- With Adversaries: A diktat may secure temporary concessions, but it does not resolve underlying conflicts. It teaches the adversary that the only path to security is to build sufficient power to resist future ultimatums, accelerating arms races and entrenching hostility. As China responds not by capitulating but by doubling down on its own technological and strategic autonomy, the failure of the diktat approach becomes clear.
- With the Global Order: By dismantling the rules-based system, the strong do not create a stable hegemony; they create an anarchic and predictable world where every nation, large and small, learns that power is the only law. This ultimately makes the world more dangerous and unpredictable for the strong as well, as new powers rise and coalitions form to balance against the hegemon.
Wilson’s Fourteen Points was a failed but prescient attempt to escape the cyclical violence of victor's peace. It was an argument for a world of laws. Trump's "28 Points" represents the triumph of the Melian Dialogue's logic. It is a peace of the vanquished, a series of diktats where the powerful United States, playing the role of Athens, seeks to impose its will on a world cast as Melos. The profound tragedy is that this approach misunderstands the nature of modern power. In an interconnected world, security and prosperity cannot be sustainably maintained through domination and diktat. By creating a world of vanquished—of resentful allies, determined adversaries, and a shattered global commons—the strong, in the long run, ultimately vanquish their own future security. The peace of the victor, as Versailles proved, often contains the blueprint for its own destruction.