Dave Stockton
Donald Trump’s reported 28-point „peace plan“ does not offer a roadmap to stability; rather, it rewards Vladimir Putin for an unprovoked war of aggression and the illegal occupation of sovereign territory. Even with the modifications currently being floated in diplomatic circles, the proposal is unlikely to gain the Kremlin’s assent or meet Ukraine’s existential needs—namely, the total withdrawal of Russian forces and just compensation for the devastation wrought upon the country.
Trumps framework
Many provisions within this 28-point framework appear identical to Putin’s long-standing war aims. These include the de jure annexation of the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Crucially, this would force Ukrainian troops to withdraw from territories in Donetsk they still control, while cementing the Russian occupation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—effectively recognizing their cession to Moscow.
Under the proposed terms, Ukraine would be obliged to slash its armed forces to 600,000 personnel—a sharp reduction from its current strength of 900,000 active troops and 400,000 reservists. By contrast, Russia maintains a force of 1.3 million with an additional 2 million in reserve. Furthermore, Ukraine would be compelled to hold elections within 100 days—a timeline clearly designed to foment internal political chaos, thereby inviting further Russian interference.
Perhaps most egregious is the clause regarding legal culpability: all parties would receive full amnesty. This ensures that Russian war crimes will go unpunished. Additionally, Russia would be readmitted to the G8, transforming the group into an even more reactionary club of powers. Such a move would inevitably embolden pro-Putin governments in Hungary and Slovakia, as well as right-wing populist movements across the continent.
The so-called peace plan also outlines a program of economic reconstruction that functions largely as a pretext for resource extraction. The terms suggest a bonanza for both Russian and American capital, primarily at the expense of Ukraine’s natural wealth, including its gas infrastructure and rare earth deposits. While the plan proposes investing $100 billion of frozen Russian assets into Ukraine, it stipulates that the United States would claim 50% of the profits from this venture. American firms would secure lucrative stakes in Ukraine’s fast-growing sectors, including advanced military technology, data centres, and artificial intelligence.
Beyond Ukraine, the plan reportedly envisages joint US-Russian exploitation of the Arctic region. With the simultaneous lifting of sanctions, this amounts to nothing less than a „robber’s peace,“ with Trump and Putin emerging as the sole victors.
It appears these terms were agreed upon bilaterally between Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Russian officials—with the President’s blessing. However, the proposal has exposed deep fractures within the US ruling class. The MAGA movement and the broader Republican establishment are openly divided on the wisdom of offering such favourable terms to the Russian dictator.
Consequently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been dispatched to Geneva to negotiate with President Zelensky and European leaders. Yet, if reports are accurate that the terms are being substantially altered, Putin is likely to reject them, condemning the region to another winter of war. A Trumpian peace in Ukraine promises to be as hollow as his „ceasefires“ in the Middle East—where violence continues unabated in Gaza and Lebanon—meaning it will not apply to the aggressor.
Strategic interests
Strategically, Trump appears driven by the belief that he can detach Putin from his „greatest friend,“ Xi Jinping. While the Sino-Russian alliance is, like all such pacts, one of convenience, it is highly improbable that the Kremlin would sacrifice it for a deal with an unstable White House.
The United States retains the power to force Zelensky’s hand by severing military, financial, and intelligence lifelines. It is unlikely that the European Union or Britain can fill this void; their militaries remain inextricably tied to US „protection“—specifically regarding nuclear cover, high-tech logistics, and intelligence—via the NATO architecture.
However, the friction between Washington and European capitals is symptomatic of a growing global disorder, fuelled by competition for raw materials and markets in a stagnating world economy prone to recession. Europe’s current rearmament drive, publically justified by Russian aggression, may paradoxically incentivize Putin to escalate hostilities before new European capabilities come online.
The international labour movement must unequivocally condemn this Trump-Putin pact. It is reminiscent of the predatory treaties that concluded the First World War—Brest-Litovsk, Versailles, and Sèvres—which paved the way for the Second World War.
If Ukraine, whether under Zelensky or other leadership, chooses to continue its resistance, it retains its right to self-defence. To preach peace in the abstract, as some „campists“ on the Left have done, is to reject the elementary socialist duty to defend an oppressed nation, even if this conflict is itself interlinked with a growing struggle for the re-division of the world.
Such a peace merely lays the explosive charges for future conflicts, as Putin will undoubtedly seek to expand Russia’s imperial domination over states he views as historically subservient. Yet, the European powers are not agents of peace either; as all European governments – be they led by right wing populists, conservatives, liberals or social democrats – boost defence spending at the expense of welfare and wages, they reveal their own imperialist priorities. The US, the EU and the European powers themselves have been expanding towards Eastern Europe massively since 1990, making most of these states a semi-colonial arena of Western European (or US) semi-colonial exploitation.
The working class and the oppressed across Europe and the Americas are the only reliable force capable of combating this drift toward war. They must assert their political independence from all factions of the exploiting class. If the ruling powers attempt to impose war upon us, the answer must not be submission, but revolution.