The Telegraph reports,
The United States has threatened to cut off weapons and intelligence to Ukraine unless it signs Donald Trump’s peace deal by next Thursday.
Sources said Ukraine was under greater pressure from Washington to bow to the US president’s demands than in previous negotiation efforts.
“They want to stop the war and want Ukraine to pay the price,” one of the sources told Reuters.
Volodymyr Zelensky said on Thursday he would use the plan as the basis for negotiations with Russia but Kyiv has warned its red lines must not be crossed in any peace deal.
The Ukrainian leader spoke to his European allies on Friday, including Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, who “welcomed efforts of the US” but called for a “just and lasting peace” for Ukraine.
Mr Trump’s 28-point peace plan is largely favourable to Russia, giving Moscow more Ukrainian territory than it currently possesses and readmission to the G7.
On Friday, the Kremlin maintained that it had not received Mr Trump’s peace plan but warned Mr Zelensky must negotiate “now” or risk losing more territory.
The part I have put in bold type looks alarming. On the other hand, the British press, most definitely including the Telegraph, continually tries to make Trump look as bad as possible. In the first few months after Putin invaded, Ukraine’s resolute defence against the odds saved the country from annihilation – but as the war drags on its position seems to be gradually weakening. What do you think? Is this the best deal Ukraine is likely to get?
What is the cost to Russia, or are they going to be rewarded for their aggression? Looks like a lousy deal to me. What’s to stop them coming back with a re-equipped army?
If the US president gets this deal, will he be seen waving a piece of paper in the air and proclaiming “peace in our time” as he disembarks from Airforce One I wonder?
A bigger question is “Can Putin afford to accept these terms?”
The US is once again proving to be a capricious and unreliable ally.
Very true. Y’all should look elsewhere for support. We have our own problems right now.
“We have our own problems right now.”
And this sort of capitulating to a third-rate country like Russia suggests you’re going to have more of them in future!
Your last president saw fit to re-equip the Taliban.
Why do I get the feeling that the Chinese are enjoying every moment of this?
That is not a “deal”, it would just be a ceasefire until Russia is ready at a time of their choosing to start again.
“You idiots had better start taking care of this right effing now!”
Yeah, let me know how this approach works out for you. 😉
I have not seen the proposed agreement – and so can not usefully comment.
Media reports are no good – one has to see the actual document.
That is not a “deal”, it would just be a ceasefire until Russia is ready at a time of their choosing to start again.
I’m waiting patiently for Europeans to develop and implement, on their own, a viable strategy for bringing the war to an end.
It was obvious all along that Putin was procrastinating in order to get a better deal. A negotiating tactic that Trump should be very familiar with; but perhaps he thought that it is not used in international relations?
As for the actual deal on the table: I, like Paul Marks, cannot comment.
Ukraine’s resolute defence against the odds saved the country from annihilation
I don’t know if you guys have ever seen those videos about “could a squadron of F-15s sent back in time have prevented Pearl Harbor”, or “could a squad of modern Marines defeat a Roman legion.” And the answer is always they could for a while, but once they ran out of all those fancy new weapons, or jet fuel or bullets, they’d be quickly overrun.
No one, especially me, would question the courageous stand the Ukrainians have put up for their country and I for one wish them, and all of Ukraine, well. Like I have said before I have had a relationship with the country for a long time, and I personally know several young men who I have not heard from for years and greatly fear what their status is (though happily I did hear from one of them recently and he is healthy.)
But we all know that what wins wars is not resolute bravery, but logistics. So let’s be clear this “resolute defence” is vastly more to do with the the supply of western arms, and especially the US’s military welfare and defense industry (though Europe has been contributing more for sure.) So, truly, the question an American President should be asking is “is this deal good for America.”
I don’t know enough of the deal to know the answer, but I do know the American people are very tired of sending money out to endless foreign conflicts, and I do know that Zelenskyy’s red lines are entirely unrealistic. As I have said before, Russia will give up Crimea about the same time they give up Moscow. The only long term solution is peace followed by commercial engagement. Which may well be difficult but is the only long term solution.
And although I am a Trump supporter, I do worry that this deal is more to do with Trump’s pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize than it is to do with the welfare of America, or Europe, even if the two might coincide. For sure, I wish Trump would put as much energy into improving our flaccid economy as he does into all these spectacular peace deals.
There you go — I’ve said enough to piss off both sides of this debate.
European states have had the best part of 4 years to make the opinion of the US President an irrelevance. The fact that a “deal” like this can be countenanced should put Europeans to shame and force them to confront reality. But it probably won’t.
Russia is losing strategically. They never thought their energy infrastructure would be vulnerable. Ukraine is dismantling it and their economy with it. They have no tanks left to talk of. It’s meatwaves on motorbikes clawing inches forwards at catastrophic cost in blood and treasure. I think this winter might break Russia. Ukraine knows this. They will never accept the deluded offer that appears to be on the table.
We need to see the document – otherwise we are talking about something, without knowing what it is.
Is this the best deal Ukraine can get?
While the deal may or may not be clear that is irrelevant. They can accept this deal or fight on. If they fight on they may get a better deal so the issue is can they fight on. Obviously they can but they must be able to increase the pain on Russia to get a better deal.
Assuming they don’t accept the deal Trump will withdraw intelligence which is said to be instrumental in the air war on Russian refineries and electricity infrastructure. So assume the success rate is cut to 50%. The US only supplies weapons now if the EU ponies up but they may decide to cut off supplies even if the EU pays. The major loss here will be Patriot missiles so expect the success of Russian air strike to increase. While this will increase death and misery no air campaign against civilians has ever moved the dial on morale so no big deal (I don’t mean to sound callous).
The real issue isn’t Trump but Europe including the UK. Ukraine can’t afford this war the way Russia can so they need someone else to pay for it. If the Coalition of the Willing step up to the plate then Ukraine can fight on and perhaps get a better deal. If they don’t then Ukraine can’t get a better deal.
JJM:
Ukraine is not a US ally.
It occurs to me that this is a typical Trump “”play””
Its the beginning of negotiation.
ie put in some things you will concede, so as to get what you really want.
Let the games begin.
Yes they are, and they’re fighting a common enemy. It is in both American and European interests that they win.
It is much worse than a ceasefire. In the deal Ukraine must hand over the rest of the Donbass to Russia without a fight, including the highly fortified Fortress Line. That is the strongest defensive line in Ukraine east of the Dnieper. In addition, Ukraine must reduce the size of its military by 60%, return any Western weapons it has, and turn over its long-range missiles to Russia. On top of that foreign troops are banned from entering Ukraine and Ukraine will permanently forswear both NATO membership and acquisition of nuclear weapons, enshrining both prohibitions in its constitution. NATO must also statutorily ban Ukrainian membership.
In exchange for all that, the US will give Ukraine security guarantees (but not troops on the ground), but those guarantees are automatically withdrawn if Ukraine fires a single missile at either Moscow or St. Petersburg.
If all of this weren’t enough, Western sanctions are withdrawn, giving Russia access to Western technology to rebuild and modernize its military. To this end a joint Russian / American investment fund is created to share American high technology such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing and to rebuild Russia’s energy and natural resources infrastructure.
Oh, and amnesty is given to the Russians for all war crimes committed in Ukraine. But Russia does promise to pass a law stating that it will never invade Ukraine or Europe again, so there’s that. Truly peace in our time.
This must be an example of that British understatement I’ve been hearing about.
Sure and it demonstrates that the winner in this, as in World War 1 will be the side which can continue fighting longest and still gain ground, regardless of how slowly that ground is being gained.
While Ukraine may well be more technologically adept, Russia’s ability to continually field more troops into the conflict is grinding the Ukranians into the mud.
Nope. Russia can continue this for a couple more years at least, unless someone in Russia manages to defenestrate Putin.
European nations, kicking and screaming, will eventually be forced to look at this & plan on a world where the USA is neutral to them at best & spend their economic & political capital on the basis of that. The destabilisation of Russia’s empire should be at the very core of European strategic objectives, seeking to drive wedges between Russia and China, with China encouraged to see the Russian empire’s Asian holding as tempting targets for “decolonialisation”.
Germany did not lose WW1 militarily by attrition. It lost because of mutiny in the navy (who weren’t in the trenches) and loss of morale amongst the starving civilian population. It’s a bit too complicated to put here, but remember the stab-in-the-back ideation amongst the soldiers which was one of the contributing causes of WW2.
The lesson here if there is one is that collapse comes suddenly. IMHO Russia is more likely to collapse than Ukraine if the war goes on as it has.
No – Imperial Germany was clearly losing on the battlefields of the Western Front before the the Armistice.
And Germany in 1918 looted the Ukraine and other lands – for food and materials. It was defeat-on-the-battle-field that defeated Germany in 1918. The German army was losing battle after battle – and being forced further and further back. The “stab in the back” legend was always a LIE.
As for Russia….
Mr Putin’s plan in 2022 (and it is was very much his personal plan) Airborne troops in a “helirush” to near Kiev, and an armoured advance down the long narrow road to Kiev from the north (a plan similar to “Operation Market Garden” in World War – but much WORSE) was an utter disaster – the airborne troops (the best in the Russian army) were massacred, and the armoured thrust down the long road was destroyed by attacks from the flanks. Mr Putin was responsible for terrible defeats – personally responsible, as it was his plan.
Since then Mr Putin has been, gradually, forced to take a back seat in favour of professional soldiers – and traditional attrition tactics. “Russia collapse” – no that is not likely at all, Russia does not import food and raw materials – it exports these things, and it has a long land border with the People’s Republic of China – overwhelmingly the strongest manufacturing power on Earth. The position of Russia is not the position of Germany in either World War – it is not going to be undermined by denial of raw materials or food, and it is not faced by a lack of manufactured goods – it is not being out produced as Germany was (by the United States) in the Second World War.
However, we still have not seen the legal text of these proposed “deal” – where is it? Where is the formal legal text?
Newspapers used to publish the full formal text of treaties – not just their interpretation of them.
Also, and this is very important, any treaty covering the United States, for example pledging defense of some part of Ukraine, would have to be ratified-by-the-Senate.
If a treaty is not ratified-by-the-United-States-Senate it is NOT a binding treaty – indeed it is legally worthless.
Ukraine must insist that any treaty is ratified by the United States Senate – so the United States is legally bound to come to the aid of Ukraine if Mr Putin breaks an agreement (and it is very likely that he WILL break an agreement).
The “Paris Peace Accords” claimed to give the Republic of Vietnam a pledge of American support if the Communists broke the agreement – they DID break the agreement, but the United States betrayed South Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia) – because this “agreement” was not a legal treaty ratified-by-the-Senate.
I am repeating this point because it is very important – the Ukrainian government must insist that any agreement is ratified by the United States Senate, otherwise it is not legally binding, it does NOT commit the United States to coming to their aid.
“But that requires two thirds of the Senate – it is too difficult”.
Then the “deal” is legally worthless – it does not commit the United States to anything.
You can believe simultaneously that this is a bad deal for Ukraine, AND that it is a good deal for the US.
You can also simultaneously believe that it is a bad deal for the US BUT a better deal than continuing to pay for a war with no upside for the US, and in a now, in 2025, irrelevant region.
You can also believe that it is a bad deal for the US, BUT one forced on them if the upside they seek is the EU stopping freeloading.
Ftaod, I want Ukraine to win. Bigly.
If ending US strategic dominance in the “west” by pushing Europe (the USA’s largest trading partner) into French style “tous azimuts” foreign policies is a good deal for USA, then I guess so. The argument that this dominance costs USA too much is certainly an argument that can be made.
I don’t agree but as Old Jack Tar pointed out (I looked that up & it means a British sailor!), the natural European counter to expansionistic Russia (if USA is no longer a European ally) is making nice with China and encouraging them to gobble up Russia’s far east.
IMPORTANT:
It now looks like this abortion of a deal might not be “Trump’s proposal” after all but some sort of shambolic confusion
Actually the morning of the 8th of august 1918 Amiens changed everything
The very first combined arms attack
In less than three hours etc
Look it up
It certainly is a incoherent shambles
Laurence Freedman has a lot of details on his substack worth looking him up
The WW1 German collapse came from the rear. Certainly the army was losing but it did not accept it had lost. There was enough in the stab-in-the-back assertion to kick off WW2 (among other factors, of course). I find it strange to assert that Putin isn’t still responsible for the ongoing failure. He has not put the professionals in charge, there aren’t any left from combat deaths, corruption charges and unscheduled window excursions. Russia could collapse. Or fragment. Or ditch Putin with prejudice. We’ll see.
It occurs to me that if Russia got this deal which seems to be all carrot for them and all stick for Ukraine and then came back with a new army after five years, to take and occupy all of Ukraine, it would go very badly for them. We have not really seen asymmetric guerilla war with drones. I can’t see how an occupation force could live with that. (And Western nations should take note, they are even less equipped to do so)
No rhoda klapp – the German army was defeated on the battlefield, again and again, in 1918, it-was-finished.
However, what you say reminds me of how right those officers were who said the German offer of an armistice in November 1918 should have been REJECTED – “the Germans will lie, they will pretend they did not lose, unless we march into Berlin” was correct.
Imperial Germany started the war with lies, for example the Declaration of War on France in 1914 was a tissue of LIES (formal statements that Berlin knew not to be true) and Berlin ended the war with more lies – which continued after the war. The Declaration of War on Poland in 1939 contained similar lies – supposedly the Poles had attacked Germany (which they had not), just as the French had supposedly attacked Germany before the German Declaration of War in 1914 (which they had not).
As for Russia – its position is utterly different, both on the battlefield and at home, there is no comparison between Russia now and Germany in 1918.
Perry – that is why I have repeatedly asked for the formal text of the proposed agreement.
Anyone who bothered to listen to President Trump would know that the end-state-document does not even exist yet – things may still be negotiated, things are subject to change.
The “shambolic confusion” is not in the White House – it is in the offices of the Telegraph.
IF the stories are true, Russia is to be effectively rewarded for aggression. Ukraine is to be punished for resistance. Now the rumours are that ‘Russia is on the verge of collapse’. I don’t know, can’t know, how true that is. Collapse comes suddenly. I wondered whether those who are proposing the peace plan had heard that. Wondered why Putin can’t leave Moscow. And all that was needed was to wait until it happened. However, what I think now id that the plan is aimed at saving Russia from collapse for geopolitical reasons. Easier to live with weakened Russia in onw piece than with the fragmentation of the Russian empire. Because the beneficiary of that would be China. And China with Siberian resources would be the greater threat.
No Russia is not on the verge of collapse. A strategy of winning over Russians to an anti Putin point of view was rejected some years ago. Instead there was a strategy of demonizing Russians (even suggesting that Russia should be broken up) – this has enabled Mr Putin to POSE as a patriot (I have never believed he is a Russian patriot – indeed he has sold out Russians to forces who have been their enemies for many centuries), guarding the motherland against supposed Western conspiracies.
A strategy of trying to Russians against Mr Putin might have worked (full disclosure – that was the strategy that I supported, but I do not make the decisions) – but that is a “might have been”, we will never know. And there is no plan to “save Russia from collapse” – because there is no possibility of that happening. Propaganda is all very well as a weapon – but the danger is that one starts to believe one’s own propaganda, and then people operate in a delusion (a fantasy world) of their own creation.
“why Putin can’t leave Moscow” – he does leave Moscow (quite often, although his health as not as good as it once was – ditto everyone else of a certain age).
As for the stuff leaked to the media by officials – they are not American proposals, the United States has no interest in, for example, limiting the size of the Ukrainian armed forces (Ukraine is not about to launch an invasion of New Jersey) – these are RUSSIAN proposals. The Americans will put them to the Ukrainians – who will present their own proposals, and so the haggling process continues.
Mr Putin will point out that when he was born (1952) Crimea was NOT part of the Ukriane and had never been part of the Ukraine, and he will go on to say that a land route to Crimea just happens to coincide with areas that are Russian speaking – and the Ukrainians will REPLY by pointing to speeches made by a younger Mr Putin when he repeatedly said that Crimea and-also the eastern Russian speaking parts of Ukraine were of NO REAL VALUE to Russia and should stay with Ukraine (yes – he said that) – and the younger Mr Putin was correct about that, these areas contain nothing that Russia does not have (in spades) anyway, gaining these lands is the vanity project of a now old man (Mr Putin) and will not gain Russia, the Russian people, anything at all.
The war is utterly pointless – vast numbers of Russians, and Ukrainians, have died so that Mr Putin can change the colour of some land on a map – land that will give the Russian people no real benefit. I repeat – a vanity project.
My fear is that any final agreement will not be ratified by the United States Senate – which means that American security pledges to Ukraine will not be legally binding (shades of the betrayal of South Vietnam).
A simple look on Wikipedia would reveal that Putin has travelled this year to Belarus, Alaska, China and Tajikistan,the latter being just last month. So unless you have some evidence he has a body double putting in the work…..
I do think Russia made a serious mistake invading Ukraine. However, I have heard since the war began numerous pundits claiming Russia was on the verge of collapse, that providing weapon X or Y would change everything for Ukraine, that Russia couldn’t win because it’s economy was smaller than Italy or Spain, etc. I remember the British tabloids running stories claiming Putin had a terminal illness over 3 years ago. I don’t have any special insight at all but with so much wishful thinking is masquerading as fact, I take much of what is printed or said about the conflict in the media with a pinch of salt.
Martin – yes I am afraid so.
I can assure you that Mr Putin’s “RT” are even worse liars – but, yes, the Western media does push a lot of bovine excrement.
I also agree with you that Mr Putin (for it was his personal decision) did Russia great harm when he invaded Ukraine – it gains Russia nothing the Russian people do not already have (in vast amounts) and has killed a lot of people for no good reason.
It was a vanity project – an obscene, blood soaked, vanity project. And his “victory” amounts to changing the colour of land on a map.
At least in Vietnam and so on the Communists were fighting for a cause – an evil cause, but a cause. Russian soldiers who have died in Ukraine did not die for Marxism – most people in Russia (including Mr Putin) know (know better than anyone) that Marxism is drivil – its philosophy, its history, its economics, its sociology, all nonsense. So they have died for Mr Putin’s ego – nothing more. They certainly did NOT die for Russia or for the Orthodox Church – neither of these were threatened by Ukraine in 2022 (the threat lay much closer to home – with Mr Putin’s alliance with Islam, and he draws more soldiers from them now, 2025, than ever before – in spite of recent terrorist attacks and centuries of conflict).
The military plan of Mr Putin (and it was his personal plan) in 2022, was absurd – it made “A Bridge Too Far” look moderate and reasonable – a “Helirush” on Kiev that got a lot of Russian airborne soldiers, and a long armoured attack from the north (that was supposed to get to the airborne troops – to save them if things went wrong, like the cavalry riding to the rescue), getting picked off from the flanks on the long (very long) “road of death”. And it ended in FAILURE.
Mr Putin must not be allowed to cover up his plan of 2022 – what he did, how many Russians he got killed, must be remembered.
Russia, the Russian people, was not threatened by Ukraine – Mr Putin’s war was based on vanity, his “victory” gains nothing but ashes and dried blood.
As for the Western establishment and its delusions – well we must be honest about these things as well, as you have tried to be.
Meanwhile Russian fertility remains at 1.4 babies per woman – slow motion genocide. And the fertility rate of Mr Putin’s “friends” in the “Stans” (the various nations of Central Asia which became independent with the collapse of the Soviet Union – but which supply many of his soldiers these days) remains positive, as does the fertility rate of his Crescent Moon “friends” in Russia itself (how many of those 1.4 are even Russian?). Outside the shinny cities (the cities are all Mr Putin cares about – almost as if he has been born and raised in Petersburg and then moved to Moscow), the towns and the villages (the villages – the soul of Russia) are dying.
As Mr Navaly often said (before his “natural” death) – the rule of Mr Putin, over 25 years now (if he was going to do anything good he has had over 25 years in power to do it) has been more than failure, it has been TREASON – treason to the Russian people.
“But look – I have changed the colour of some land on a map, I have made Russia bigger!” Damn you Mr Putin, damn you to Hell.
Before anyone points it out – I know that all Western nations, including the United States, are also dying. I am told that the only two Western countries with a fertility rate that does not mean death, are tiny Monaco and Israel.
Oh well – there is Paraguay.
No, that is a better deal than Ukraine is likely to get.