Trump’s peace plan, Ukraine–Russia, and the “illusion of victory” Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Ukraine has expressed its readiness to limit the size of its Armed Forces to 800,000 troops in order to achieve peace with Russia under the U.S. peace plan, senior officials close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Financial Times. According to them, unresolved issues remain regarding territorial arrangements and security guarantees from the Americans. Before Russia’s invasion, the Ukrainian army had about 250,000 personnel, and now it numbers around 880,000. Even after a reduction, it would remain the largest army in Europe. During negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, Russia had demanded that the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces be cut to 85,000 troops in peacetime.

Earlier, it became known that Ukraine had agreed to the U.S. plan to end the war with Russia. A U.S. official told CBS News that “some minor details to be sorted out .” At the same time, territorial issues were moved to a separate discussion at the presidential level—between Zelenskyy and Trump.

Rustem Umerov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, confirmed that “a common understanding on a proposal had been reached, with details still to be worked out”. According to him, Zelenskyy plans to visit Washington before the end of November to finalise the arrangements with Trump.

The U.S. peace plan was reduced from 28 to 19 points after American and Ukrainian delegations held negotiations in Geneva. In the original version, Kyiv was asked to hand over the entire Donbas region to Russia in exchange for freezing the front line in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, as well as reducing the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 600,000 troops.

According to Western media, the document has removed the provision granting Russia amnesty for war crimes. In addition, the idea of using $100 billion in frozen Russian Central Bank reserves for Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction—so that 50% of the profits would go to the United States—was abandoned.

Provisions concerning Russia–U.S. relations that were not directly related to the war were also removed.

What happens next? Is at least a ceasefire possible? Will Moscow agree to it after the peace plan has undergone significant changes and reductions?

Prominent foreign political analysts shared their opinions with Caliber.Az.

Konstantin Bondarenko, head of the Ukrainian Politics Foundation, analyst, and historian, believes that in this case, Putin will demonstrate inflexibility.

“He has already formed the main positions, which he preliminarily agreed on with Trump in Anchorage, and he does not intend to concede. For Russia, several points are crucial:

a) guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO;
b) recognition of territorial acquisitions (including all of Donetsk and Luhansk regions);
c) reduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Other issues can be discussed.

But these same points are fundamental for Ukraine. Therefore, despite optimistic statements, the parties are far from signing a peace agreement. Today, the United States is the main initiator of the peace deal.

Both Russia and Ukraine show that they are ready to continue fighting. Ukraine is supported in this by European states, which cannot afford to lose the war. Russia demonstrates successes on the battlefield and intends to show that it will capture territories, whether by negotiation or by force. Russia does not intend to cease fire, as a halt would allow Ukraine to strengthen and rearm,” the expert believes.

Regarding the negotiation process, two concepts have effectively emerged, he says.

“The first is the Vance concept, outlined in 28 points. The second is the Rubio concept, with 19 points. Vance represents the MAGA environment, inherently anti-globalist, and also advocates for a compromise with Russia.

Rubio represents the classic Republicans, who favour a compromise with the globalists. Ukraine is trying to act by rallying European leaders to its side and by using Rubio as a lobbyist. Which side Trump will ultimately take—Vance’s or Rubio’s—remains to be seen in the near future,” Bondarenko notes.

Russian political analyst and editor-in-chief of the After Empire portal, Olga Kurnosova, notes that it is difficult to give a precise answer in this case.

“Simply because we don’t know to what extent Putin even understands the reality of what is happening today. On one hand, it seems to him—or he is being briefed in such a way, which is partly true—that Russia is moving forward very slowly, but steadily.

Accordingly, he may have the illusion that the part of Donetsk Oblast he so desires will eventually be obtained. Another question is: what will be the cost of acquiring that part of Donetsk? This is why territorial issues periodically appear in various versions of the peace agreement. It is very important for him to demonstrate to his own population that he has indeed captured the infamous Donbas.

On the other hand, if we look at the global outcome that Putin will definitely achieve, it is the disruption of the established world order. Clearly, the balance of power that existed before—primarily within NATO, and the close alliance between European countries and the United States—will no longer exist once any agreement is reached.

Another question is what contributed more to this: Donald Trump coming to power or Putin’s war? That’s a separate question. But in any case, Putin’s war has certainly had a significant impact on the global order. The world will never be the same as it was before the war. Clearly, institutions such as the UN Security Council and other international bodies will no longer be able to play the roles they once did, simply because they failed to handle this aggressive situation.

This is exactly why the provisions on granting Russia amnesty were removed: because if someone were suddenly to try to grant amnesty to Russia, it would not just be a collapse of the world order, but a collapse of the entire system of international law. According to all current international laws, Russia is an aggressor state committing war crimes. Therefore, there must be accountability for these war crimes, and someone must bear that responsibility,” the analyst insists.

Regarding a ceasefire, it would seem to be the most natural course of events, as well as the subsequent gradual demilitarisation of the zone along the line of contact, she says.

“Whether Putin will agree to this remains an open question. It is unknown what else Trump might ‘negotiate’ with him. As we can see, these talks, despite all the leaks about them, are largely taking place behind the scenes.

This suggests that these negotiations are probably much closer to a real diplomatic dialogue than anything that has occurred before. There is certainly some movement—the question is, in which direction? We will only truly understand whether any progress is possible after American generals travel to Moscow and return. And what they bring back from there—we will see,” Kurnosova concludes.