28 points: peace that reeks of defeat
"Ukraine may now face a very difficult choice: either a loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner; either a complex 28-point plan or an extremely hard winter," President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his address to the nation on 21 November. This is his response to a draft peace plan put forward by the United States.
Kyiv was forced to act swiftly: Zelenskyy quickly named the delegates for talks with the Americans. Among them were Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak and National Security and Defence Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, who had only recently found themselves at the centre of a corruption scandal dubbed "Mindichgate".
While the Ukrainian and US sides were trying to reach an understanding behind closed doors in Geneva, the media space was abuzz with news and commentary. The American press reported that the document had been drafted by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian emissary Kirill Dmitriev, with assistance reportedly from the US president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Later, the media published the so-called "Witkoff tapes", in which he is supposedly heard discussing the peace plan with Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov and offering his recommendations on how to win over the US president. However, while the talks were ongoing, the general public still knew nothing about this. At the same time, journalists were writing about an alternative 24-point document drawn up by the Europeans. It aligns more closely with Ukraine’s interests and differs from the American plan.
On Monday, the Ukrainian delegation returned to Kyiv. After speaking with the negotiators, the president announced that the number of points in the future agreement had been reduced, but that more work was needed on them. He did not go into detail. Instead, he urged Ukrainians to take air raid warnings very seriously over the coming weeks, as Russia would keep up the pressure. That same night, a mixed barrage of Kalibr and Kinzhal missiles and Shahed drones was launched at the capital. In this way, the Russians once again demonstrated their real attitude to peace talks – far more eloquently than any words.
"RUSSIA’S CONSTANT INTENTION IS TO FORCE UKRAINE INTO SURRENDER"
"We saw Russia’s ‘29th and 30th points’ flying towards Kyiv in the form of missiles, killing seven people and damaging buildings and energy infrastructure," commented Yevheniya Kravchuk, deputy head of the Servant of the People parliamentary faction. "Escalations at the front and attacks on civilians often happen precisely against the backdrop of negotiations, to force Ukraine into capitulation. That is their constant intention."
But the negotiation process continues. Members of parliament have not officially received either the original 28 points or the updated document. It is possible that the Verkhovna Rada leadership has more information. However, MPs who are not part of the presidium learn about these developments only from open sources — official statements and comments from our negotiators in the press. That was also the case with the 28 points. When they appeared, I happened to be on a business trip, so I followed all the discussions alongside colleagues, including Dutch politicians. I can say that Europeans are also deeply concerned that Russia might emerge from this aggression with amnesty and consolidated territorial gains. On this, we and our European partners stand on the same side. But it is crucial that Europe’s response goes beyond press releases, statements, or tweets, it should include concrete decisions. For example, approving the reparations loan in December, a step that depends entirely on the European Union. That would be the best response.
It is clear that only the negotiating teams of the United States and Ukraine have the revised version of the document. This revised text was handed over to the leaders of the countries, Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy, but it is not yet public. From the official comments of our delegation, we can conclude that the agreement will be a framework agreement. To implement it, additional agreements will likely be needed, for example, between Ukraine and the United States, particularly regarding security guarantees. I cannot say anything about the ratification of the final version by the Verkhovna Rada, because first we need to understand what official documents may come out of this negotiation track.
What next? In fact, only the United States and President Trump can find enough arguments to pressure the Russians so that they are truly ready for negotiations that should be about a just peace, not their "goals of the special military operation (SMO)" and other narratives. I am currently commenting extensively on the situation for Western media and emphasising that the biggest problem is not the disputes between the US and Ukraine. If the Americans listen to our arguments and the words of our European partners, we will end up with a more or less acceptable document. It is clear that a conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy still needs to take place, because the negotiators did not take responsibility for some of the issues. But the root of the problem always lies with Russia. Therefore, we may again see its dissatisfaction and a return to the cycle of refusing constructive negotiations. It is therefore very important that, in parallel, both the Europeans and, I hope, the Americans have a clear plan to put pressure on Russia when it once again refuses to engage in negotiations based on common sense and the norms of international law.
"UKRAINE HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS READY FOR NEGOTIATIONS, BUT NOT FOR PEACE AT ANY PRICE"
Yevheniya’s fellow faction member, Yehor Cherniev, deputy head of the parliamentary Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence, agrees that Russia may refuse to accept some provisions of the peace agreement that the United States and Ukraine might endorse:
- "The question is whether these 28 points were really a final decision agreed between Russia and the United States. I’m not sure they were written in Moscow. So there is a risk that after Ukraine and the US agree on the plan, the Russian Federation will simply reject it. After all, the most contentious points concerning territory and our future will be taken up at the level of Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy. From what I know and have heard, no one here is going to hand over any territory. And for Russia, it is a matter of principle that we give up Donbas. At this point, I don’t see how this fundamental issue for both sides can be resolved. Ukraine has entered the negotiation process and shown it is ready for talks, but not for peace at any price. Where we can, we are ready to compromise. But not on matters of principle.
We have been in this kind of deadlock for quite a long time. Every time we approach negotiations, we hear the same thing from the Russian side: the goals of the so-called ‘special military operation’ must be achieved. But they can dress those goals up, for example, present ‘demilitarisation’ as reducing the size of our army. That is another interesting point. On the one hand, no one has the right to dictate what the Armed Forces of Ukraine should look like. On the other hand, it is logical to assume that once the war is over, we will naturally move towards reducing numbers, because we cannot keep so many people in the military, and there is no point. Some of them have to be transferred into the mobilisation reserve. What the Russians will come up with under ‘denazification’ I don’t know. I have no idea what they mean by that at all. But when it comes to territory, I repeat, I see no room for compromise.
Today, Trump is signalling that he wants to sign an agreement. If Russia refuses, he may take tougher steps, tightening sanctions against it and providing us with additional weapons. Russia is also factoring this in, taking into account its internal situation. Ours is obviously difficult, but things are not easy there either. They still have a certain margin of safety, but they are also calculating how long it will last. In any case, we are talking about months rather than years.
I think the negotiation process may drag on. Initially, we were told to sign the document by 27 November. But the deadlines have already shifted. We remember that the war was supposed to end the day after Trump was elected president. Almost a year has passed since then. So the talks may move ahead slowly. That is why we are working as intensively as possible with our European partners, both on their political stance and on further financial and military support for Ukraine. We have to be prepared for the fact that nothing will be over tomorrow. The attack on Kyiv showed us clearly how Russia treats negotiations. They are demonstrating that they can keep going and will keep going. That is also a form of pressure on us. We understand this. So we proceed from the realities as they are. All the more so since intelligence data, both ours and that of our partners, shows that Russia has not abandoned its plans to seize territory, and not only in Ukraine. The figures they are budgeting for next year to ramp up arms production in no way indicate that they are ready to end the war. Rather, they suggest that they could start another one in parallel, for example, against the Baltic states. Europeans understand this. I’m not sure the US does to the same extent. They assume that Russia would not dare attack NATO. But we can already see that the doctrine of nuclear deterrence no longer works as it used to. The war in Ukraine has shown that you can wage war against a nuclear power, and it will use conventional weapons. So if a ground offensive starts on the territory of the Baltic states, I very much doubt that the Alliance would be the first to use nuclear weapons."
"TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO STOP LOOKING LOVINGLY TOWARDS RUSSIA"
Member of Parliament from the European Solidarity faction, Volodymyr Ariev, believes that the negotiation, believes that the negotiation process was not focused on results from the very outset:
- "The Russians had a different objective. They wanted to get Trump, who had begun to doubt the sincerity of Putin’s intentions, to turn back towards his ‘friend Vladimir’. In other words, this whole story was designed to throw up a smokescreen for everyone and delay the introduction of sanctions, including the passage of Lindsey Graham’s bill, because Trump had said he was already losing patience.
From the very beginning, I said that Putin would drag things out for as long as possible until he is forced to sit down at the negotiating table. And there are two things that can force him. First, strengthening Ukraine militarily. By the way, Germany is now allocating us twice as much funding for next year as for the current one – €11.5 billion. Second, ramping up pressure on Russia itself. These must be economic sanctions tough enough to force Putin to back away from his positions. So far, I do not see any circumstances that would push him towards a decision in favour of peace.
That is why Witkoff and Dmitriev drafted these 28 points in such a way that the US president would see that they were ‘doing something’, while at the same time making it impossible for the Ukrainian side to accept them. In this situation, the President’s Office tried not so much to counter Russian influence as to use it to divert attention from the massive corruption scandal involving Zelenskyy’s friends. So, strange as it may sound, the stars aligned in such a way that the interests of the Russians and the President’s Office (OP) coincided. That is precisely why I do not think we should continue discussing this story. We can already consider it closed. I don’t know whether Putin could accept these terms. If, suddenly, he does, it would mean that he has found himself in a situation where he can no longer continue the war and urgently needs a pause. But at the moment, I see no reasons that would suggest he is backtracking and genuinely ready to start negotiations.
I would note that after our European partners stepped in, the talks took on a completely different tone, and Trump has already agreed to the Ukrainian amendments. In other words, they helped us play it elegantly and correctly – not to respond in a purely reactive way, but to come forward with our own proposal. Although, in fact, those 28 points should not even have been picked up; we should have said from the start that we would table our own version.
Will the so-called ‘Witkoff tapes’ affect the negotiation process? Clearly, they will primarily impact domestic dynamics in the United States, because there will be congressional elections there in a year. And even among Trump supporters, very few believe that the US should take Russia’s side – around 16%. More than 70% actually support Ukraine. This is a significant factor when it comes to decision-making. Trump will be forced to stop looking lovingly towards Russia. These tapes may have worked more as a factor that wrecks Russia’s plan, shuffles all the cards, and resets everything to the starting positions. I think that from now on, the US president will understand that such games do not pass without consequences for anyone, and that a completely different approach is needed. And in the end, as Churchill said, the Americans will try every possible option before they finally arrive at the right one."
"NOW IS THE WORST TIME FOR NEGOTIATIONS SINCE THE START OF THE FULL-SCALE INVASION"
Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence, MP from the Holos party and SBU colonel Roman Kostenko explains how the story of the talks is playing out on the front line:
- Of course, service members read the news, see what is happening and ask questions. Yes, some are already extremely tired and say: ‘Let’s do something to put an end to this.’ But many of them understand that you cannot trade away your sovereignty when the Russians have not captured (and will not be able to capture in the near future) that part of Donetsk oblast, have not occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, for which many of their brothers-in-arms have been killed. How can we simply give up territory, as the Russians demand? They will definitely not accept that – or many other things. So I do not even know who could agree to such terms. But there is already information circulating that Trump himself did not know what exactly was in those points, and that Rubio at first supposedly could not answer members of Congress when they asked who had written them. In other words, neither we nor even the Americans fully understood where this document had come from, yet we went off to discuss it. And that raises a series of questions as well. Who set the agenda for the Ukrainian delegation? Who decided on its composition? Why are there no members of parliament – the legislative branch – there? The head of the Presidential Office went, the head of the National Security and Defence Council, representatives of the government, but not ministers, even though we have the Verkhovna Rada and heads of ministries. What exactly were they agreeing there? I, for one, do not know. Nor do I know what Ukraine’s position is. And when, following the talks, we hear them saying: ‘We removed half of the anti-Ukrainian points’, I want to know what exactly they are talking about. There is no concrete detail. Show us! Let’s discuss it so that everyone is informed about what is going on. If we assume that there is an agreement with the United States to hold closed-door talks, then representatives of all branches of Ukrainian government must be there. In the end, it will be parliament that has to vote on the document produced. If, after the latest corruption scandals, something else dubious is brought to us as well, there will be a great deal of debate. I am not sure that, under such circumstances, even MPs from Servant of the People would vote for it. That is why either the speaker or another representative of the Verkhovna Rada definitely has to be at the negotiating table. Because no one elected the head of the Presidential Office or the secretary of the NSDC. All the more so given that the media have reported they may feature on NABU tapes. I personally do not trust this negotiating team.
Overall, I believe that the provisions that suit us will be reflected in the final version of the peace agreement that Ukraine may sign one day. For example, confirmation of our sovereignty. That is what we want, isn’t it? Of course. Or the issue of stationing NATO fighter jets in Poland. That works for us as well, as does a pledge that Russia will not attack the Alliance. But there are also critical points – those written in Moscow, such as handing over territory to Russia or limiting our army. The latter can be debated. What bothers me more is not the specific size of the Armed Forces, but the wording ‘limitations’ itself. It is wrong to talk about sovereignty in the first point and then specify in another how many troops we are allowed to have. Personally, I can imagine our army being smaller than 600,000. Or perhaps larger – but in that case, we need to understand whether we can afford it. That requires economic calculations. It is also important what Russia’s armed forces will look like and whether they will withdraw their troops from our territory. All of this has to be examined in detail.
The crucial point here is that this is the worst time for talks since the start of the full-scale invasion. Yet we went to them and are pretending that everything is fine. How are such talks normally conducted? From a position of equality, from a position of strength, or at least from a situation in which the adversary can expect to incur losses going forward. We, however, agreed to them when the situation on the battlefield is neither the worst nor the best it has been recently, there is a threat of Pokrovsk being encircled, the Russians are starting to assault Kostiantynivka, and there have been breakthroughs in the Huliaipole sector. If Russia is making gains, why would it make concessions? Of course it will not. All of this is compounded by the highly negative backdrop of the biggest corruption scandal in Ukraine during this administration’s time in office. Among those under suspicion are precisely the people who effectively went to the talks. Does that earn our delegates any credit? No, because they are sitting across from Americans who also understand everything. Against this backdrop, we are trying to negotiate something. Instead, we should have tried to step aside and buy time. Inside the country, the president should have taken responsibility for all of this and stabilised the situation. Only then should talks have begun. Because the current circumstances may force us into making concessions."
"RUSSIA IS PLAYING A DIRTY, VILE GAME"
Politician and diplomat Roman Bezsmertnyi stresses that in the current situation Russia is acting on three fronts:
- The first is demoralising Donald Trump, the second is whipping up the corruption scandal in Ukraine, and the third is aggressive attacks on Europe, which began with the attempted sabotage of railways – which, incidentally, failed. In essence, they are applying pressure along the entire perimeter.
What should the response be? The United States, Ukraine and Europe sit down together and work out counter-measures that are then rapidly put into practice. This is understood neither by Trump nor by those working with him, so they just keep flailing. The situation in Washington is very unpleasant and in a bad way internally. Their system is simply falling apart before our eyes. People openly say they go to the Administration just to have coffee and do little else. This document has laid bare many of the problems of ‘Trumpism’ as a system of government.
So we need to think about what the next steps should be so that, on the one hand, they do not fall out among themselves – all the participants in what we can call the coalition of freedom and democracy – and, on the other, do not give the Kremlin a chance to secure overall or piecemeal victories on all fronts. The task is not easy and is not limited to this plan, outline or roadmap – whatever you call this document – because in reality it is very primitive and worthless. Everyone understands that. Why is Rubio behaving this way? Because he wants to use the moment to ‘whitewash’ Trump and avoid disgracing him completely – to try to distance Witkoff from the process, which will not work, because he is a friend. We should note how Rubio, Kushner and Vance suddenly appeared in this process. All three realise the situation is a complete mess. And then we have this ‘miracle of the tobacco and alcohol industry’, Driscoll. Where did he even come from?! I understand he is a friend of Vance’s, but that is not enough to be dealing with such issues – you need the relevant knowledge, experience and skills. It turns into just plugging leaks wherever it’s dripping with whoever happens to be at hand. So in the current situation, the minimum task for Ukraine is to hold the line together with Europe. We must also try to pull Trump out of his current ‘pit’. Because this is no longer about his ability to influence anything, but about making sure he is not simply "ground to dust" and that is where things are heading. For Putin, the priority now is not so much the fighting as cornering Trump. Unfortunately, Moscow is managing to do that, because in effect Witkoff is acting as an agent of the Kremlin. The level of Trump’s demoralisation in the current situation is off the charts. He is very afraid that after the ‘Epstein files’ (which are not that terrible – they can be crossed out) more information will start to surface. What are they? It is an old KGB-style operation which, in addition to what is now widely written about, also contains plain facts of state treason. And that will come to light – and not necessarily through these files. Epstein is just a detail: they found a curly-haired guy who could ‘mess with people’s heads’, then they knocked him off so he wouldn’t get under everyone’s feet. We need to look at this situation differently – Moscow knows everything very well. As always, it is playing a dirty, vile game, including with Witkoff. And none of this is about peace. As Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times aptly notes, you can easily imagine Putin sitting on a white sofa by the Black Sea, laughing at the way the West is behaving."
"Ukraine’s leadership today finds itself facing a choice where there is no real choice. This is one of those cases where whatever you do – come up with a global peace summit or write 15 points for victory – it is still Moscow that ‘places the order’ and ‘conducts this orchestra’. So your task in the current situation is to save what is called Ukraine, these 30–35 million people. You cannot win this alone. Ukraine, the United States and Europe must form tight ranks as partners. This ‘axis of evil’, which includes Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela and various African cannibals, must be confronted by an organised force. Only a coalition of freedom and democracy can play that role. At the same time, we are well aware of who Donald Trump is. If someone brought him sacks of gold and said, ‘Just give a little wave,’ he might do it. He is incapable of anything more. He is a man who thinks not in terms of values, but in terms of interests. Kushner laid it all out in his interview with The Telegraph, saying they conclude deals based on interest rather than values – and not national interest, but personal.
On the one hand, Zelenskyy’s current behaviour is the right one – we should not have pushed the Americans away, but we must not plunge headlong into that process either. We need to look at everything with a cool head. We entered the process, showed ourselves and our position, and immediately stood side by side with Europe and worked out joint actions – that is the absolutely correct approach.
Overall, Ukraine looks stronger in this process than Washington does right now, even against the backdrop of all this talk about cutting off aid or not giving us something. And what would the reaction inside the United States be in that case? I’ve seen that support for Ukraine is currently highest among Republicans, while dissatisfaction with Trump’s behaviour is growing. So, ultimately, this entire situation will either lead to a short pause before a serious war, or will simply be a continuation of the current one. Unfortunately, there is no third option. Whichever path you take, the ‘Führer’ will keep on waging war."
Olha Moskaliuk, Censor.NET
