A Plan Without Peace
To
begin with the simplest, most practical dimension: this plan is not, by any
stretch, a document capable of ending the war. It has none of the properties of
a peace plan. It is, rather, an exercise in self-persuasion - classic Western elite behavior, a
conversation conducted with themselves, a ritual of convincing themselves that
a solution exists. Yes, compared to previous formulations presented by the
West, it appears slightly more grounded. But “more grounded” in this case still
produces nothing of qualitative value.
The
only real frameworks that ever contained the potential for resolution were
three: the maximalist Russian ultimatum of late 2021 (NATO at 1997 borders);
the Istanbul agreements of April 2022, as reported; and finally, the June 2024
speech by Vladimir Putin at the Russian Foreign Ministry. All serious analysts
admit: any genuine settlement can only rest on the foundation of what has been
called Istanbul-plus. That includes military limits for Ukraine - force size in the range of 100,000, tank
capacity around 300 units - along with
neutrality, defined internal political changes, and, in the 2024 addition, the
full legal recognition of Russia's territorial status and the withdrawal of
Ukrainian forces from territories Russia considers constitutional.
In the
West, these points are treated as irrelevant. But from the Russian position, it
is precisely their relevance that determines whether the conflict ends or not.
Because it is Russia - and only Russia - that can order its forces to cease fire. A
plan that diverges from these minimum requirements by more than 5 to 10 percent
has zero chance of serious discussion.
Now
look at the so-called Trump Plan. None of those core conditions are present.
The territorial and legal questions are ignored. Zaporozhye, Kherson, and other
regions are placed in the same limbo. Meanwhile, under the Russian
constitution, the country cannot legally relinquish territory. To do so would
plunge it into a permanent constitutional crisis, with consequences reaching
far beyond the battlefield. The proposed limit of 600,000 troops for the
Ukrainian army is worse than the terms Russia offered when it was in the weaker
military position in early 2022. And now
- when even Western analysts acknowledge that Russia is gaining the
advantage - it is being asked to accept
terms inferior to those it itself proposed while being weaker. To imagine such
acceptance is to ignore basic strategic logic.
There
is also a new red line: the European Union. Russia once tolerated the idea of
Ukraine’s EU membership. That changed between 2023 and 2024, when the EU ceased
being merely an economic bloc and effectively became a military-political one.
That makes Ukrainian integration unacceptable. Another point the Trump Plan
ignores entirely.
In
short, the plan satisfies none of Russia’s minimal political, military, legal,
or constitutional conditions. Moreover, it is not a joint Russian-American
initiative, as some try to portray. It is strictly an American proposal to
Russia - a unilateral American script.
Russian officials have already said it plainly: we are not familiar with this
plan.
Yes,
Russia has always been ready for diplomacy
- from the first day of the war. But Russian diplomacy, unlike the
Western variety, is not a search for compromise. It is simply another way of
compelling the fulfillment of Russia’s requirements, without using force. And
that is precisely why the response to this “peace plan” was delivered not by
diplomats, but by Putin in military uniform, addressing the armed forces. That
image alone clarified where Russia places these “initiatives.”
Now - the higher plane: the spiritual one. Even
if we were to imagine a miracle, where this plan, against all logic, produced a
formal freezing of the conflict - it
would still change nothing. Because it does nothing to remove the fundamental
spiritual cause of the war: the Antirussia Project - Ukraine used by external operators as a
geopolitical drone. The plan pretends that by cancelling NATO ambitions,
appointing some American “commission” and producing hollow “security
guarantees,” the problem disappears. It does not.
Above
all, it ignores a basic fact: the United States is not a neutral party. It is
the architect and co-author of the conflict. You cannot bomb Belgorod one day,
and then the next day claim to be an impartial mediator. Real mediation
requires colossal moral legitimacy, clean hands, trust from all sides, and
genuine integrity, combined with the capacity to respect the dead - on all sides.
Here,
none of that exists. There is no trust in institutions. No trust in persons. No
willingness to mourn the dead under any flag. No awareness of the scale of
tragedy - not transactional, but
ontological. Not political, but existential. What we see instead is the
language of progressive corporate bureaucracy
- an odd hybrid of crypto-Polish phrasing and American municipal jargon,
full of slogans about “tolerance campaigns” and “cultural exchange to reduce
racism,” drafted by people who did not bother to glance at the context of the
war they pretend to solve.
The
document breathes arrogance. It speaks to Russia - and to Ukraine - as though to children who have quarreled
too long, and must now be pacified by “grown-ups.” It treats spilled blood as
an inconvenience, history as a nuisance, and tragedy as a PR obstacle. The only
logic it respects is the logic of brokerage. Of a trader. It carries no moral
or historical weight. And notably, the only party that this plan fully protects
from any loss - material, reputational,
or moral - is the United States.
Meanwhile,
those same brokers try to play on exhaustion, on genuine suffering, on genuine
longing for a real - not temporary, not
transactional - but real and durable
peace. They try to sell that longing back to the people who paid for it with
lives.
What is
being sold to you is glass beads. Regardless of which country you live in - even if you live in America - what you are being offered are glass beads.
Exactly like those once traded to Native chiefs in exchange for real strategic
assets. Let us not become those chiefs -
not in the mind, not in the heart.
We owe
it, even now - if only virtually - to keep our clarity. To honor the real
cost. And perhaps someday, when men are willing and history returns to
sobriety, to pronounce the only verdict this plan deserves - not in diplomatic language, but in human:
A
golden, and profoundly hollow spoon.