28 Points Later

A definitive guide to the Russian zombie diplomacy of Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine — aka what happens when you let the Russians eat your brains

On November 20, President Trump’s Secretary of the Army presented a draft 28-point plan to President Zelenskyy. Nominally, it is a framework for ending the active conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

There is no other way to understand the 28-point plan than as a standard Russian exercise in reflexive control, the outcome of which is the elevation of Russia’s status and the diminishment of American credibility and power — all at basically no cost to the Russians. When you negotiate with the Russians without any deep understanding of the history of the security services and their strategic objectives, or without constantly reorienting yourself against that understanding — you become invested in the perpetuation of the long con of Russian great power. Essentially, you listen to the Russians too long and with any belief in their earnestness, and their drivel starts to eat your brain. In this agreement, for example, Russia is treated as the victor of a war it is not winning.

This is the longest of Russian cons — which I was reminded of recently when reading some accounts about the various westerners who gave Russia nuclear secrets. Many of these did so for purely ideological reasons, offering endless explanations that they gave the Soviets the knowledge to build atomic weapons for “parity” — so everyone would be armed with the same weapons, which would guarantee there wouldn’t be a “third world war.” It wasn’t “fair” for the knowledge not to be shared with our former wartime partner, so the story went.

It was a stark reminder that Russia’s greatest power has always been crafting seductive illusions. The illusion of the necessity of their parity helped them to become equal in a way that would ensure all their weakness would be overlooked. The idea of the necessity of working with Moscow zombies on and on.

Central to understanding our failure to deter Russian aggression in any real measure since the death of Soviet Union must be acceptance that the United States has gotten Russia wrong because it still evaluates Russia from within the mirage of smoke and mirrors that Moscow has so elegantly crafted for us. This funhouse tells us that Russia is an economic and military power that can be a partner in maintaining peace in a “difficult region” — when in truth the “difficulty” is Russia and its objective has always been confrontation, expansion, and domination.

But Trump’s negotiators are new to this party and believe the smoke and mirrors are revelation. The “new” Trump-presented plan is a lightly warmed-over version of previous Russian proposals that have been presented via diplomatic channels, business intermediaries, and other shadier interlocutors, including the disgraced former mayor of New York City. Essentially, this plan is: Ukraine gives up more territory than Russian currently occupies, Ukraine agrees to remain a “buffer state” vulnerable to Moscow’s manipulations, and Russia is never held to account for any of the 194,000+ (and counting) war crimes committed during its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.

There’s enough promise of direct financial incentive for America sprinkled across this version to ensure little else would have been presented to President Trump to ensure his stamp of approval. In fact, it’s clear the origination point of the document was that the US and Russia should work together to reclaim Russian frozen assets and divide them. This leads to the second key point — that what Russia wants in return for its money is full amnesty.

The assumptions underpinning this framework are highly flawed. The first assumption is the idea that “Russia is winning/will inevitably win” in Ukraine — which is a false premise. (You can read a range of assessments on Russia’s lack of theory of victory in Ukraine here, here, and here.) The second assumption is that Russia has any right to reclaim its frozen assets. Which it only can if we all decide that war crimes don’t matter.

All this serves as a reminder that the current Russian theory of “victory” is getting the United States to end its support for Ukraine or force Ukraine into a crappy deal that will rip Ukraine apart, politically. Because what we always forget is that Russia’s war against Ukraine has always been equally against us — the west, us; NATO, us; America, us. With either option, the US looks weak and creates division with its allies. Win win win for Russia.

Further evidence that getting the US to accept these ideas and present them as their own was an exercise in reflexive control is that as soon as the details were leaked to the press — which Witkoff tweeted was done by the Russians themselves — the Kremlin basically “new phone who dis”-ed the thing, saying they had not seen the final document.

So now the plan, “agreed” to by the White House and the Kremlin, has only been agreed to by the White House, which will be left defending its premise as the Kremlin inevitably asks for more favorable terms — because absolutely everything in their physical action shows them expanding their war in Ukraine and against the West, not “seeking peace.”

But let us again examine how we are told we must give Russia an atomic weapon to “ensure peace.” Below, the underlying meaning of the individual points of the 28-point plan are evaluated, as well as the additional text on Ukrainian security guarantees. (Each point is presented as leaked below in bold text; analysis is in italic text).

* * * * *

Draft 28-point plan “for peace in Ukraine”

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

Sovereignty — but not territorial integrity, which this document makes clear is over. Ukraine will continue to exist and have the power to govern itself — provided it accepts the many qualifications and limitations on its self-definition as defined in the remainder of this document.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

First, absent here is reference to the United States, which no doubt Witkoff was convinced was wise — leaving European problems to the Europeans — but which would de facto mean Russian aggression against the United States is just fine. It also de facto defines Ukraine as outside Europe.

Second, non-aggression pacts with Russia aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

Third, “will be concluded” leaves a lot to be desired — would this include an end to Russia’s hybrid aggression?

Fourth, “all ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled” — between Russia and Europe? What’s Europe, in this case? Are we talking the de facto recognition of Russian annexation of territories in Moldova and Georgia as well as Ukraine? What about the small border disputes in the Baltics and with Finland? What about ongoing prosecutions relating to espionage, sabotage, assassinations, and interference — are those “settled” too? This is a sweeping statement that not only lets Russia off the hook for just about everything (more on that below), but it forces the US to do an incredible amount of Russian heavy-lifting on the Kremlin’s behalf — against its treaty allies.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.

“Expected” is also doing some heavy-lifting here, enabling a thoroughly wishy-washy construction of non-guarantee. What about non-neighboring countries? “NATO will not expand further” embraces the Russian propaganda that NATO expansion is the cause of Russian aggression, rather than the choice of sovereign nations seeking to contribute to and benefit from a security alliance.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

This constructs again mirrors the Russian propaganda narrative that conflict between Russia and NATO undermines global security and “economic cooperation.” It also places the United States outside of NATO, and makes the United States an equal arbiter between an adversary and our own alliance, as if they are somehow comparable as non-American things in the eyes of this administration. “Cooperation and future economic development” — it’s almost amazing we’ve made it to point 4 without the money being waved around, as we know it is the topic Putin continually raises to capture the attention of President Trump. Of course, what’s super odd here is including this in a “dialogue between Russia and NATO” — as NATO is not an economic alliance.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

While there is a bit more on this in the additional text on security guarantees (discussed below) — the passive voice here is notable. Receive from who? Guarantees of what? Better than the last time, I hope, since the Budapest Memorandum wasn’t such a hot deal?

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

Current estimates on the size of Ukraine’s army are obviously considerably higher as a wartime structure, if not always transparent or exact. But this would be a reduction by at least 25 percent of the current force. An “end” to the war with appropriate security guarantees would mean a reduction in mobilization, of course — but it should be up to Ukraine and not Moscow or Washington to determine the pace of demobilization and the right size of the force to defend Ukraine — and contribute to security operations in Europe and beyond. Before Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Ukraine was a significant contributor to global security and peacekeeping missions, and in Ukraine — as in the United States — the choice of a military career has long been an important pathway for education and advancement. These are complex questions for Ukraine that relate to security, economy, employment, social attainment, and more. A decision made over their heads treats them as the defeated party in a war — or are we also defining force limits for Moscow? Yeah, didn’t think so. Maybe Europe?

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

Both aspects here accomplish a core deliverable for Moscow while running roughshod over Ukrainian sovereignty and NATO principles and policies. If it’s already been agreed in the above article that “NATO will not expand,” it is absolutely unnecessary for NATO to change its statutes to explicitly exclude only Ukraine and no other nation. The point is to make the US force NATO to eat sh*t on this, chairing unpleasant internal councils where America continually dons its bad-guy hat, hammers a wedge through the transatlantic alliance, and inflames divisions between frontline states and other parts of NATO. Ukraine must “enshrine in its constitution” — so now we’re telling the sovereign Ukrainian parliament what to do, too? Ukrainians have led three revolutions to ensure their pathway into Europe and NATO — and Russia knows this is a poison pill for any Ukrainian government or parliament.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

In point 8, we have the US back in “NATO” to agree not to station troops in Ukraine. “Station” can mean a lot of things. Are we talking permanent forces or rotational forces too? Does this preclude training detachments, which prior to 2022, have long been rotated through Ukraine? SOF to SOF cooperation and exchanges? Also, “NATO agrees” — does this writing imagine this also prohibits bilateral arrangements? This is important because many European NATO nations — including previously at the urging of the United States, which was berating Europe to fix its own problems — have been separately discussing how troops from some European nations might be sent to Ukraine as a component of security guarantees that would have a higher deterrent effect on Moscow. This seems to say that is not happening — and I imagine the Brits and Europeans have thoughts about Washington and Moscow telling them where they are allows to deploy their forces.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

To state the obvious — Poland has dozens of fighter jets, many more on the way, and is European. Hence, there are already European fighter jets in Poland, always. It would be up to a Poland to determine if other allied forces can be stationed in Poland. Which is probably a good idea since this whole agreement elevates Poland’s frontline pressures — as no one trusts a non-aggression pact with Moscow, etc. “European” here and not “NATO” is again deliberate and interesting — in no small part because the US has a significant military presence based in Poland and currently leads the NATO eFP (enhanced forward presence) in Poland, but does not want to be included in this duty roster. Many questions.

10. The U.S. guarantee:

• The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee;

• If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;

• If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;

• If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

Just the order of operations here is depressing and base. It defaults to: the US does nothing unless you pay up; Ukraine is a more likely rogue actor than Russia; Russia will behave because we gave it all the stuff it wants anyway — right?; back to Ukraine being the likely bad guy again — but also, what’s the “with cause” scenario in which Ukraine is launching a missile at a major Russian city despite a non-aggression pact being in place? Can they keep bombing other places though? Are drones ok but not missiles? Are we imagining then that the air war between the two nations continues, so the “invasion” aka illegal war of aggression by Moscow is technically “over,” but everyone is still bombing everyone? The ideas and language here are equally sloppy and imprecise, creating wide openings for ongoing hostilities instead of precise ways in which the peace will be enforced.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

Again, it’s for Europe to decide this — which it has already done by granting Ukraine candidate status for accession and opening accession negations with Ukraine since the full-scale invasion began. This is a settled issue between Brussels and Kyiv, not Washington and Moscow — and neither of the latter have much right to dictate trade preferences between European nations, either. But there is nothing to be “considered” — the direction is agreed and Ukraine is working to meet the terms of those accession negotiations. It’s a carrot Ukraine has already eaten.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

• The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.

• The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.

• Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.

• Infrastructure development.

• Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

• The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

The squishy language here is meant to seem appealing to Trump without providing anything specific — despite being the most important aspect of any post-war scenario in Ukraine. The reconstruction of Ukraine, especially if — as discussed elsewhere in this document — Russia is not held to account for its illegal war of aggression and pays no compensation to Ukrainians or their nation, is a vast project. Ukraine is massive and populous, and its economy and infrastructure must support the return of Ukrainians from abroad and from the frontlines to a safe nation where they have good prospects. There is already a register of damage established for Ukrainians to submit compensation claims — and this process must be carried forward. But this shoddy listing views Ukrainian reconstruction as an afterthought for someone else to figure out, other than staking out where the US imagines it will have direct financial interests. Additionally, the vague World Bank reference is to avoid committing the seized Russian assets fully to Ukrainian reconstruction — see below for more on this.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.

• The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

• Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

I mean sure, lift the sanctions in phases if Russia ever makes good on its promises, and given the Exxon worm in Trump’s ear, we know American petroleum companies will rush back into Russia, eager to have their assets taken away by the Russians at another future occasion, just as we know we will never escape the illusion of “rare earth” independence from China. Whatever. But the idea of cooperating with Russia on AI and any related infrastructure should elicit nothing but a bitter, sardonic laugh. “Ending” Russia’s war in Ukraine does not make Russia an ally, and cooperating with a nation that defines us as their main enemy to develop the tools that will be integral to all future warfare and supremacy — no thanks. This is the first Trump admin “cyber security cooperation group with Russia” reboot. For fun, you can look back to the tech cooperation the Obama administration encouraged as part of the reset — which just helped Russia develop capabilities it has weaponized against the United States and its allies since. Russia’s strategic partnerships with Beijing and Tehran also make this a pretty hollow and absurd idea. Let Moscow sort this one out on its own — or not. They can just steal our stuff like they usually do, since we are barely even bothering with basic counterintelligence anymore as everyone is retasked to the imaginary “invasion” of migrants.

But in the G8 — just a flat LOL. Russia deserves no place in this group, which is organized around shared principles of democratic governance. Russia is not a democracy. There are plenty of other fora where they can show up and wave their little great power hat.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

• $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;

• The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

Ah, here we see why the seized assets were not mentioned above — and this is the core premise from which this entire document has emerged. Because Russia has gotten America to bring forth this document as their own by attempting to bribe them with frozen Russian assets that Russia is never getting back and which the US has no right to.

On its face, this is appalling — no matter how the war “ends,” it was an illegal and unprovoked invasion for which Russia should have to pay a a direct price TO UKRAINE, not to the United States of America for letting Russia off the hook.

It is also not something the US can control, as the vast majority of the seized assets are in Europe. And the vagueness here — sure, maybe the US will rebuild some stuff, or they can also just use the money for investment, which doesn’t necessarily directly address the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to undo the damage Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has caused, or maybe it’s just investing into US companies with vague Ukrainian projects that never happen. Also, speaking about “profits” here — from the reconstruction of a nation that another nation was trying to wipe from the face of the earth — is the most grubby and debasing thing.

So to be clear, frozen Russian assets will be shared between the US and Russia — and some of those assets may help rebuild Ukraine, or not, and the rest will rebuild the Russian economy and give them resources to continue their infiltration of the west via anyone who will take their dirty blood money. Meanwhile Europe is expected to pony up the funds for Ukraine — and let me just tell you, rebuilding Ukraine is going to take a lot more than $200 billion.

“Strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict” — this is a flawed idea presented in laughable language designed to cover up a theft of resources from the Ukrainian people and a reward to Russia for its war of aggression. It’s an utter shambles. There are not enough bells in all church towers in Europe to ring out the shame of this heist.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

The foxes have stolen the eggs but don’t worry they will keep watch on the henhouse for you. Sure sure. Total trust. Such a framework would ensure nothing, and only be a vehicle for the further Russian manipulation of American strategic clout.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

Russia is famously a rule of law state, after all (fact check: it isn’t). And again — the framing that no such guarantee is needed with the United States says multitudes.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

Great, fine, whatever.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Again — Ukraine has not been defeated in the war, and such terms are sovereign matters of determination — particularly if you’re already telling Ukraine it will be outside NATO and need stronger deterrent capabilities of its own.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine — 50:50.

Russia has spent much of the full-scale invasion destroying the Ukrainian power grid and electricity generation capacity, and occupying and threatening civilian nuclear facilities. This rewards those war crimes and allows Russia to remain a beneficiary. Why should Ukraine be forced to keep an integrated energy grid with Russia when the rest of Europe is severing those connections as fast as they can? Oh right, to leave open Russian leverage over Ukraine.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

• Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

• Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education. (Note: Similar ideas were incorporated into Trump’s 2020 Israel-Palestine peace plan).

• All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

It’s particularly funny to see the reemergence of the Russian “Ukrainians are Nazis” propaganda on the same day the news breaks that the US Coast Guard no longer thinks Nazis symbols are bad — but this small point aside, the text here is designed to ensure that Russia regains its cultural influence in Ukraine, manipulating democratic ideals to be able to do so, or, failing that, it’s ability to use these issues to divide Ukraine and propagate anti-Ukrainian narratives. The Baltic states, notably Estonia, have positively argued, as European nations, for policies that safeguard their nations but protect the rights of their citizens and residents. These will be complex issues for Ukrainians to manage — but it is a national issue, and they should not give up the consolidation of statehood that has occurred during the war. Also, I seriously doubt Russia is going to be defending Ukrainian language and culture in Russia, as Putin has argued Ukrainianness is not real.

21. Territories:

• Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States.

• Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.

• Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.

• Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

Don’t need to say much here, as the Ukrainian president — and people — have already made it clear where they stand on the occupied regions — let alone on giving up territory they actually control to give Russian occupation “a buffer zone.” A reminder that this isn’t land, but millions of lives — millions of people left under Russian occupation authorities and Stalinist systems of control, or left adrift from their homes and cultural heritage — and future economic potential for Ukraine and its recovery. Russia is not the victor, and should not be granted the spoils of illegal aggression — de facto or not. It will absolutely be the end of the system the United States of America built after WWII, signed and delivered by the American president.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

“Once territory has been gained by force, no further force will be allowed to gain territory, unless you think you can use force to gain territory for terms more favorable than this agreement” — sure sure, totally plausible. Ukraine can just stand by and watch the Russian occupation authorities oppress Ukrainians and threaten to steal/not return their children, sounds like a great plan.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

“Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using its own rivers and ports to transport its own economic products” — seems like that nonaggression pact kinda sucks? How about “Russia will stop interfering in the freedom of navigation throughout the Black Sea”? Heck throw in the Baltic Sea while we’re agreeing to things.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

• All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.

• All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

• A family reunification program will be implemented.

• Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

One point to address the vast human suffering, neat! The language here, in reality, needs to be quite specific in advance. Russia has many prisoners it does not properly identify or has unlawfully convicted inside Russia. POW lists are more reliable, but the lists of civilian detainees are not as well defined as there is no formal process governing them. No one should trust for a second that Russia will return all of the tens of thousands of children when no one even knows what the complete list is, and many have been renamed and adopted off to Russian families. “Family reunification” — in which direction? What is being done to address the forced Russian passportization? How is transit between Ukraine and its occupied regions being managed? “Measures will be taken to alleviate” — you mean like the register of damages that has not been mentioned here since Russia does not want it to exist? Russia owes billions in restitution for its targeting of civilians, their property, and civilian infrastructure. “Measures will be taken” is dismissive passive language, passing the buck to a nonexistent “someone.”

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

Ukraine will hold elections when the state of emergency ends, but 100 days from what point, exactly, matters. And no one should think the Ukrainian people won’t be on top of this themselves.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

Just as point 14 is clearly the grubby point of departure for this whole draft, point 26 is the grubby point of arrival for Moscow. There is nothing Moscow fears so much as ever facing accountability for its almost 200,000 war crimes against Ukrainians — especially under a framework being developed by the Europeans, which includes many nations who suffered under Moscow in the 20th century. Moscow has never faced justice for a century of crimes — and hopes to keep up its streak. The task of the civilized world is to deny them their escape.

Because it isn’t just the crimes — it is the failure to account for history. I’ve watched scholars and archivists in the former captive nations try to assemble the history of their suffering, survival, and resistance from the records that remain — stories of their identity and history that Moscow deprived them of as a central element of control. Ukraine deserves narrative sovereignty as much as any other kind — and this means collecting stories of the Russian crimes.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

It’s super weird to put in a specific name and not the office. One ring will rule them all, I guess — but this language makes the entire agreement a whim.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

“The agreement will start when the agreement starts, and then will be an agreement” — who needs law school when we can just type this stuff up on our phones as we go, am I right???

Additional text on security guarantees — comments added in brackets:

This Framework establishes the conditions for an armistice between Ukraine and the Russian Federation and provides a security assurance modeled on the principles of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, adapted to the circumstances of this conflict and the interests of the United States and its European partners.

1. The United States affirms that a significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack by the Russian Federation across the agreed armistice line into Ukrainian territory shall be regarded as an attack threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community. [But not “minor” “temporary” attacks or say bombardment by missiles or drones of Ukraine cities?] In such an event, the President of the United States shall, in exercise of constitutional authority [what constitutional authority — oh right, he believes congress has abdicated its powers completely to the presidency] and after immediate consultations with Ukraine, NATO, and European partners, determine the measures necessary to restore security. These measures may include armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, economic and diplomatic actions, and other steps judged appropriate. A joint assessment mechanism with NATO and Ukraine will evaluate any claimed breach. [“If Russia does something, we’ll have a process to discuss it” — but the US, now a co-investor in Russian recovery, will solely determine the response, what could go wrong?]

2. NATO members, including France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and Finland, affirm that Ukraine’s security is integral to European stability and commit to act in concert with the United States in responding to any qualifying violation, ensuring a unified and credible deterrent posture.

3. This Framework enters into force upon signature and shall remain valid for ten years, renewable by mutual agreement. A Joint Monitoring Commission led by European partners with U.S. participation will oversee compliance.

Signed:

• Ukraine

• The Russian Federation

• The United States of America

• European Union

• NATO

[Not sure why Russia is a signatory of Ukrainian security guarantees. Just leave them out of this. Also ten years is less that the duration of the war. Just sayin’. Throughout this, again the US speaks as not a member of NATO.]

* * * * *

To sum up — soul of this not-good agreement is in points 14 and 26 — and it amounts to, if the United States lets Russia evade accountability for its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine — its illegal war in Europe — then together the US and Russia can split the booty and stick the Europeans with the cost of clean-up, locking Ukraine into a series of agreements that will keep it a half-state and ensure it never becomes the Ukraine that we can see it could be in its best moments. A Ukraine that is a significant power in Europe, for Europe.

This deal deprives Ukraine of everything it has won by withstanding Russian aggression and defending the borders of Europe. The deal rewards Russian lawlessness. Worse, the deal makes America complicit in the lawlessness — the signer of the death warrant of the principles crafted from the lessons of World War II.

It is fully inadequate for the task we face.

Returning to the idea of reflexive control — what was this whole exercise even about? Clearly not even the Russians believe this “deal” is going to get done.

For the Russians — the goal was to get the United States to present Russian ideas for security architecture as their own (with an added patina of self-enrichment at the expense of values), which destabilizes Ukraine, disrupts American relations with its allies (particularly Europe) and undermines American global leadership, and shows Russian continuation as one of three great powers dictating the course of the 21st century. By leaking the agreed document, they got a pretty good return on investment. In this case, that was just a couple flights to Miami, the cost of indoctrinating a real estate mogul or two, and “giving” its frozen assets — which it is absolutely never getting back anyway — as a direct bribe to the United States of America.

The only good news in this deal is that it shows that both the Americans and the Russians know it’s actually the Europeans who hold all the cards here — because they hold the money, they’ve done the work to prepare for justice and accountability efforts, and they’re expected to carry all the water going ahead. And Europe should be assertive and clear in rebuffing this farce and putting together their own plan with Ukraine. This plan must showcase the work Europe has already done to strengthen its own security and to help Ukraine prepare to hold Russia to account for its war crimes.

It becomes clear now that the best way for America’s legacy to survive is for Europe to get its act together as the true fourth power that can disrupt the direction of the Russian-Chinese-American new world order deliberations that are going so desperately off the rails.

“Ukraine is Europe” is the point this new vision of European power departs from, and it is the idea that can make it a success.

— MM