Alastair Crooke
The 28-point so-called 'peace plan' - written as a putative legal treaty - will strike any experienced reader as an amateur production.
So, now we have the details of the 28-point so-called 'peace plan' which Ukrainian Parliamentarian Goncharenko has provided claiming it to be a translation from the original.
The text - written as a putative legal treaty - will strike any experienced reader as an amateur production, hinging, in several parts, on 'subsequent discussions' and on 'expectations'.
That is to say, much is left ambiguous, vague nor firmly nailed down. Such a plan would, of course, be - in the round - unacceptable to Moscow (although they may not disavow it outright). Even so, the plan has aroused fury and pushback in Europe. The Economist (reflecting the Establishment view) calls the paper "a terrible American-Russian proposal... which checks off many of [Russia's] maximalist demands and adds a few more".
The Europeans and Britain want Russian capitulation, pure and simple.
The point here, which Moscow makes clear, is that Kirill Dmitriev - Steve Witkoff's interlocutor in the drafting - does not represent President Putin, nor Russia. He has no official mandate whatsoever.
Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov curtly states:
"There are no formal consultations between Russia and the U.S. on the settlement in Ukraine; but contacts exist. Maria Zakharova stated that "the Russian Foreign Ministry has received zero official information from the U.S. about any alleged 'agreements' on Ukraine that the media is enthusiastically circulating"".
"Moscow's position is that Russia is open to dialogue only within the 'boundaries of its stated principles', and the U.S. has not, as of yet, offered anything official that could serve as a starting point".
So what is going on? Two politically inexperienced 'non-envoys' have had conversations, and out of these talks have stitched together some apparently speculative proposals. It is not even clear whether Dmitriev had a nod of assent for his talks with Witkoff in the U.S. in October, or whether he was acting on his own initiative. Russia's Foreign Ministry is disavowing any knowledge of the content of these extensive discussions. It would be extraordinary if Dmitriev was keeping nobody in Moscow in the loop.
In any event, President Putin has sent his own riposte to the flood of stories circulating in the western media (based on leaks to Axios apparently deriving from Dmitriev):
Dressed in military uniform, Putin visited the command post of Battlegroup West on the front line, where he simply stated that the Russian people "expect and need" results from the Special Military Operation (SMO): "The unconditional attainment of the goals of the SMO is the main objective for Russia", he said.
Putin's response to the U.S. therefore is clear.
It looks then as though this discussion document written from the American perspective was conceived as a classic 'bait and switch' exercise. Secretary Rubio has repeatedly said that he doesn't know "whether Russia is serious about peace - or not":
"We're testing to see if the Russians are interested in peace. Their actions - not their words, their actions - will determine whether they're serious or not, and we intend to find that out sooner rather than later... There are some promising signs; there are some troubling signs".
So, the proposals likely have been a 'set up' to test Russia. For example, they 'test' Russia in multiple areas:
"It is expected... that NATO will not expand further, based on dialogue between Russia and NATO, but mediated by the U.S.; Ukraine will receive 'reliable security guarantees' [undefined]; the size of Ukraine's armed forces will be 'limited' [sic] to only 600,000 men; the U.S. will be compensated for these guarantees; should Russia invade Ukraine, [then] in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits will be revoked; the U.S. will cooperate with Ukraine on joint reconstruction... and operation of Ukraine's gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities".
"The lifting of sanctions [on Russia] will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis".
"$100 billions of frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking; Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe [no mention however, of any reciprocity by Europe].
"Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be recognised de facto as Russian; Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact; Russia renounces other annexed territories".
This paragraph effectively amounts to a ceasefire - not a peace settlement - with recognition being only de facto (and not de jure):
"This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump".
"Once agreed, the ceasefire will enter into force".
This set of proposals is not likely to be accepted by the Europeans, Russia or even Zelensky. Their purpose is to dictate a completely new start-point to any negotiation. Any Russian concessions stipulated in the text will be 'pocketed' by the U.S., whilst the rug will be pulled on Russia's 'stated principles'. The pressures on Russia will escalate.
In fact, escalation has already begun. Coinciding with publication of the proposals, four long-range U.S.-supplied and targeted ATACMS were fired deep into Russian pre-2014 territory at Voronezh, which is where Russia's over-the-horizon strategic radars are situated. All were shot down, and Russian Iksander missiles immediately destroyed the launch platforms and killed the 10 launch operators.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has threatened yet more sanctions for Russia, and Trump has indicated that he is ok with Senator Lindsay Graham's 500% sanctions proposal for those trading with Russia - provided that he, Trump, has complete discretion over the new sanctions package.
The overall aim to these proposals clearly is to corner Putin, and push him off his fundamental principles - such as his insistence on eliminating the root causes to the conflict, and not just the symptoms. There is no hint in this paper of any recognition of root causes [expansion of NATO and missile emplacements] beyond the vague promise of a "dialogue [that] will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development".
Blah, blah, blah.
It seems that escalation is ahead. Russia will need to consider how to militarily deter the U.S. effectively, yet without starting up the steps of the escalatory ladder to WW3.
The balance between deterrence and keeping a door open to diplomacy is a fine line - Too great an emphasis on deterrence may (counter-productively) only incite a countervailing ratchet up the escalatory ladder by an adversary.
Whereas too much emphasis on diplomacy, may well be perceived by an adversary as weakness and invite an escalation of military pressures.
The Witkoff-Dmitriev proposals may (or may not) have been well intentioned, but the keepers of the deep architecture of global redemptio equitis are unlikely to allow Russia to preserve its 'contrarian' values.
Kirill Dmitriev, it appears, may have been 'suckered'.