Blessed Are the Peacemakers
Last week’s edition of Trumpsteria involved the leak of a 28 point peace plan hashed out between Russia and the US. The plan represented something of a retreat from Russia’s maximalist position, but still imposed major concessions-specifically territorial ones-on Ukraine.
The provenance of the plan is murky. It first emerged on Telegram, in Russian. Trump said it was The Plan. Later, according to statements from some senators briefed by Marco Rubio, it wasn’t The Plan. But then it was.
In any event, at the outset Trump sure made it sound like The Plan when he demanded that Ukraine accept it, in toto, within a week or lose all US support.
This all of course led to a rush to the fainting couches. All around knob and former Putin punching bag Michael McFaul’s take was typical: “Trump is once again acting as Putin’s agent.”
Zelensky’s reaction was subdued, rather than defiant. He said Ukraine faced a choice between humiliation and loss of an essential ally. But he didn’t say no.
And then, just like that, a Ukrainian delegation met in Geneva with Rubio. The Secretary of State waxed optimistically about the talks, calling them the most constructive ever.
And what emerged was another plan, this one consisting of a mere 19 points.
So what to make of all this? I, like everyone else, is akin to the denizens of Plato’s cave, just viewing shadows on the wall. (One difference between me and McFaul and his ilk is that I admit it). So everything is speculative and conjectural.
But one way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory developments is as follows. The US is basically engaged in shuttle diplomacy. Since the parties won’t meet directly, the US is negotiating with each and securing proposals that move the parties closer together.
As for Trump’s apparent ultimatum to Ukraine, my guess is that when presented with the Russian plan in private Zelensky balked and vowed to make no concessions. In response, Trump made his public demand. This got Zelensky’s mind right, which led to the talks in Geneva, where Ukraine budged off its previous positions. Which led Rubio to praise the talks and Ukraine.
In other words, classic bad cop (Trump), good cop (Rubio).
Throughout, Trump has been putting pressure on both sides. On Russia mainly via sanctions; on Ukraine mainly via threats of withdrawing US support. Said threats causing the McFauls of the world to damn Trump as a Putin puppet.
It’s a painfully slow process. Will it work? Perhaps not, but I see nothing better on offer. And when it comes down to it, something along the lines of the plan first mooted is the only thing that is feasible. Ukraine will have to give up territory, and won’t be in Nato. The only question really is how much territory, and what non-Nato security will Ukraine obtain.
Yes, that will be deemed capitulation to Putin by McFaul et al. In fact, it is capitulation to the reality of the battlefield. Ukraine can’t roll back Russia’s gains, and would almost certainly lose the land sacrificed in The Plan in time. The only difference being the cost that Russia has to pay to get it–and the cost that Ukraine has to pay to defer the inevitable loss.
As Zelensky’s former spokesperson said, Ukraine is bleeding out.
Continuing the bleeding is not only futile (because it will not change the ultimate outcome), it is counterproductive (because it will make Ukraine more vulnerable in the future).
So Mendel is right. Maybe this deal is bad–but it is the least bad of any feasible alternative. If Trump’s shuttle diplomacy can secure Ukraine a few concessions, Zelensky should be grateful. And the Ukrainian people even more so.
Fully agreed: We in Europe have not stepped up to the extent needed, nor even to the extent that we are actually capable of – we’ve held back. So if we want to whinge about the terms Trump is offering (and I think we should) then we also need to shut-up or put-up (and I think we should).
“If Trump’s shuttle diplomacy can secure Ukraine a few concessions, Zelensky should be grateful. And the Ukrainian people even more so.”
I think this only holds true if one of those concessions is a security guarantee that is actually reliable, and not just a chance for Russia to re-arm and try again in 5 years. Otherwise the Ukrainian people might well be safer by continuing to fight now, against a severely depleted Russia who is literally advancing at less than a snail’s pace, rather than against the well-armed Russia that made massive gains in the first weeks of the war.
Comment by HibernoFrog — November 25, 2025 @ 3:00 am
It’s been clear for ages that Ukraine was unavoidably going to lose. But some people are keen to “fight to the last Ukrainian”.
I take it that I can assume that they don’t intend to go and fight themselves, or send their own sons?
I gather that the US ruling class rarely sends its boys to serve in the US armed forces nowadays, so I find it hard to imagine such boys being encouraged to volunteer for the Ukrainian army or air force. Ditto the ruling class in France, Germany, Britain, …
Comment by dearieme — November 25, 2025 @ 7:54 am
“Human life is the highest good.”
Someone should let Earth First! know. And Greenpeace. And all those NetZero nutters.
Comment by Pat Frank — November 25, 2025 @ 11:47 am
It’s a bummer to lose. But for the sake of lives Ukraine would be better off without the Donbas and Crimea.
A truce is the best we can hope for. The guarantees last time didn’t work.
Putin might invade again, but in five years time he’ll be a lot older, and there is no prospect of his cronies and generals being any more competent. Meanwhile Russia declines (birth rate 1.4) and that is flattered by the muslim republics.
By 2040 we may well find ourselves allied with Ukraine and Russia in a messy hybrid war with Islamic states.
Comment by philip — November 25, 2025 @ 4:59 pm
And now – this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-25/witkoff-advised-russia-on-how-to-pitch-ukraine-plan-to-trump
Comment by LL — November 25, 2025 @ 5:04 pm
+++But for the sake of lives Ukraine would be better off without the Donbas and Crimea.+++
Maybe. Will the US be better off by refusing to enforce the international law and order?
I doubt it.
Comment by LL — November 25, 2025 @ 5:05 pm
“Maybe this deal is bad–but it is the least bad of any feasible alternative”
Except, of course, there was never going to be any deal. It’s merely Putin’s way of avoiding sanctions on his war economy by dangling the carrot of “peace” in front of the donkey’s nose. Works like a charm.
“And the Ukrainian people even more so.”
I suspect the Ukrainian people at this point are just wondering when the Americans finally start at least moving towards doing the right thing by proverbially exhausting every other possibility. Because so far the US has been doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, which is a totally different quip.
Comment by Ivan — December 5, 2025 @ 2:38 am