Analyzing the 28 points of the joint US-Russian draft framework peace proposal

Share

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.

More European reactions:

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

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine

• Note: NATO countries including France and the U.K. have been working on separate proposals that would include small numbers of European troops on Ukrainian soil after the war. This plan appears to disregard that possibility.

Another Russian red line is NATO troops on Ukrainian soil. Yet this point is also open to interpretation and translation: what about NATO advisors? Advisors are not “troops”. Point 8 is another potential NATO-by-stealth.

Winners: Russia (at face value), NATO Armed Forces, USA

Losers: Ukraine, NATO, Russia Hawks

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland

This is part of a potential western-backed security guarantee for Ukraine. Considering that Poland is already a member of NATO, it shouldn’t cause too much of an issue.

Winners: Poland, NATO, Ukraine

10. The U.S. guarantee:

• The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee;
• If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
• If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
• If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

These are the sticks to go along with the carrots (see: below) to ensure that everyone involved stays onside. Again, this is prone to abuse, particularly by security services seeking to stir the point and spoil the peace.

The bit about the USA receiving compensation speaks entirely to Trump’s transactional foreign policy behaviour.

Winners: All involved if it holds

Losers: All involved if it breaks down

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered

Interestingly enough, Russia is not opposed to Ukraine joining the EU. Who is? Polish and French farmers for starters, as they will have great difficulty in competing with Ukrainian agricultural products. Polish farmers have already engaged in a series of protests regarding Ukrainian foodstuffs imports.

Another issue is that fast-tracking EU accession for Ukraine would be a slap in the face for current candidate states that have had to jump through many hoops to date. Favouritism would be a very vocalized charge.

Winners: Ukraine (theoretically), USA

Losers: Ukraine (immediate outflow of citizens moving west), EU, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldova (probably), Turkey, Georgia, corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

• The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.
• The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
• Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
• Infrastructure development.
• Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
• The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

This is what is commonly referred to as “disaster capitalism”. It is both self-explanatory and rife with opportunity to abuse, pillage, and profit. Ukraine would receive a new economy with local oligarchs potentially being muscled out of the picture.

Winners: US corporate and banking interests (huge), World Bank, various EU-based infrastructure companies, corrupt Ukrainian officials

Losers: Ukrainian oligarchs

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.
• The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
• Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

One issue here is that this would be a staged process (the correct thing to do, in my opinion), meaning that a future US administration would inherit it half-way through completion. This brings up the question of American trustworthiness that Lavrov so eloquently stated. It also addresses the need for US access to Russian rare earth minerals in order to offset China’s current prevailing dominance in that sector.

Open questions regarding lawsuits based in the West against Russian companies would have to be settled, and they would most likely go in Russia’s favour so as to not spoil the entire package. Point 13 is a big win for Moscow, but once again is open to all sorts of trickery from the other side.

Winners: Russia (big), USA (limited), EU (access to Russian oil and gas)

Losers: Ukraine, US LNG, Qatar

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

• $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
• The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

The issue of what to do with the frozen Russian funds located in European banks has vexed the EU. There are those who seek to seize the funds to aid Ukraine in its defense, but countries such as Belgium are balking at such an act for fear of what it would do to their and Europe’s banking sector (potential severe reputational hit leading to capital flight).

This point has sprung quite a surprise on EU Chiefs (as we saw earlier in this essay), and has resulted in their vocal protests. US profiteering is the icing on the cake, completely Trump-centered (and very funny, I might add). This would also be Russia’s way of paying for the physical damage it has done to Ukraine.

Winners: USA, Ukraine, Russia, corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats

Loser: EU (big)

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement

Translation: Ukraine is a client state and Europe is irrelevant.

Winners: USA, Russia

Losers: Ukraine, EU

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine

Another rail guard to ensure that fighting does not break out again. The devil will be in the details meaning that the wording of such a law will be a big deal.

Winners: Ukraine, EU, USA

Losers: NATO (potentially), Russia (potentially)

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty

• Note: New START, the last major U.S.-Russia arms control treaty, is due to expire in February.

Lavrov has repeatedly publicly stated that any deal on Ukraine needs to be part of a larger comprehensive package between the USA and Russia. This point speaks to that issue.

Winners: USA, Russia

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

In 1962, the Soviets stationed missiles on Cuba that were pointed at the USA. The nightmare scenario in Moscow would be a reverse-Missile Crisis whereby NATO nukes would be in place on Ukrainian soil and aimed at Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Ukraine agreed to give up the Soviet nukes on its soil in return for Russian recognition of its sovereignty, a sore point with Kiev backers to this day.

Winners: Russia

Losers: Ukraine, USA, NATO

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine — 50:50

Cutting the pie straight down the middle. This resides on land officially annexed by Russia (and would remain under Russian control per the overall proposal), so Ukraine comes out slightly better on this point.

Winners: Ukraine, Russia, IAEA

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

• Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
• Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education. (Note: Similar ideas were incorporated into Trump’s 2020 Israel-Palestine peace plan).
• All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

This fulfills the Russian so-called “de-Nazification” war aim. It will be a tough sell in Ukraine, as the hard right has significant power in state security and especially on the ground in the armed forces. Far right elements in Ukraine have been at the forefront of this conflict. Adopting a prohibition on “Nazi ideology” would expose Zelensky and his closest circle to a potential coup d’etat.

“We’ve been on the front line for years now defending this country, and you are telling us to stop being ourselves? What sacrifices have you made that could possibly compare to the ones that we have endured over and over again?”

Winners: Russia, International Bodies on Race, “Hate”, etc.

Loser: Ukraine

21. Territories:

• Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States.
• Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
• Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.
• Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

I must admit that the use of “de facto” in place of “de jure” confuses me immensely. Why would Russia agree to such a proposal that denies them de jure (officially by law) recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and those portions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson that it currently occupies? I think that the report mixed up de jure and de facto here. It must have, otherwise it makes little sense.

An agreement to these points (if de jure) would cement Russia’s territorial gains, including the existential land bridge to the Crimean Peninsula. It would also strip Ukraine of its industrial heartland (The Donbass), and permanently end US hopes of stationing its navy at Sevastopol.

This also implies a Russian withdrawal from territory in Kharkov, Dnipro, and Sumy regions that it currently occupies. The neutral demilitarized zone in Northern Donetsk is a big question mark. For how long would it last?

Winner: Russia (significant)

Losers: Ukraine (overwhelming), USA/NATO (minor)

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment

Self-explanatory. This means the demarcation of the new border between US Empire and Russia.

Winners: USA (major), Russia (minor)

Loser: Ukraine (overwhelming)

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea

One initial key objective of Moscow’s in this conflict was to seize Odessa, a city that it considers as historically belonging to them, and one that has significant symbolic value. Indications have been for some time now that Odessa is too far out of Russia’s reach, and this point buttresses that conclusion. If agreed to, Ukraine would not be landlocked, meaning that it would have an economic lifeline to the outside world that doesn’t pass through EU territory to its west.

Winner: Ukraine

Loser: Russia

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

• All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.
• All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
• A family reunification program will be implemented.
• Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

Self-explanatory.

Winners: Ukraine, Russia

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days

This is a very, very big deal. It would require Ukraine to hold elections within 100 days of signing this deal. “Zelensky-fatigue” set in some time ago in various western capitals, as he is perceived by many Kiev-backers to be either an impediment to peace, or, too independent in terms of actions. Others have argued that the recent revelations about mass corruption in Ukraine’s energy sector (that cost the heads of several of those closest to him) were timed to exert pressure on Zelensky to agree to this deal.

Some are arguing that this also fulfills Russia’s regime change war aim, but I disagree: the most likely outcome of a new vote in Ukraine would see a more hard line government voted in (I could be wrong here). There are several very popular military figures who could run against Zelensky and challenge his office.

The intent here is to get Ukraine to pass any laws that need to be passed as part of this overall peace deal (in whatever form it eventually takes). This can be done by the threat of new elections scaring Zelensky into agreeing to do this, or, regime change in Kiev via elections. Zelensky fears that signing any such agreement as this one would result in him losing his head courtesy of either the country’s armed forces or actors in state intelligence.

Winners: USA, Russia, some Ukrainians

Loser: Zelensky and his government

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future

This would effectively make any UN War Crimes Tribunal for Ukraine null and void. Might there be a provision for trying individuals accused of specific war crimes? We will see. Regardless, it’s hilarious.

Winners: Putin and his inner circle, Russian military officers, Ukrainian grunts

Losers: The Hague, UK, human rights NGOs, Guardian UK columnists

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations

• Note: This is the same general structure Trump proposed to govern the Gaza peace agreement.

The USA as Judge and Jury, despite being a belligerent in this conflict. America’s global hyperpower status cemented. Trump as demigod.

Winners: USA, Donald Trump

Loser: UN, EU

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement

The very last point of this proposal brings up the most important question: is this entire proposal a ruse to get Russia to agree to a ceasefire at the moment when Ukraine’s defenses are noticeably crumbling in several locations along the front line?

I give 50/50 odds on this. I think I might be too optimistic in these odds. Watch for Russia to play for time here in order to continue its advances on the ground.

Winners: Ukraine (big), USA, NATO

Loser: Russia

Conclusion Remarks

Recommend Fisted by Foucault to your readers

You’ll never think of Foucault the same way again