Betrayal, intransigence and third parties 5 points that speak against an early peace in Ukraine
Donald Trump is doing everything he can to end the war in Ukraine - and is pushing the pace. With his sights set on a Nobel Peace Prize, the 79-year-old does not shy away from radical measures. However, these 5 points speak against a quick success at the negotiating table.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- This week, Steve Witkoff in Moscow and Dan Driscoll in Kiev are to push ahead with the so-called US peace plan.
- There are 5 stumbling blocks to a positive outcome.
- Russia's economic defeat cannot be ruled out.
Volodymyr Zelenskyi expects "important negotiations" this week - "we are preparing solid ground for these negotiations", the Ukrainian president announced on November 27. Another meeting between the Ukrainian and Donald Trump is on the cards.
Kiev and Washington recently signaled that there was a largely common position. There are only minor differences, it was said - although it is possible that the central question of how to deal with the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine is hidden behind this.
First, however, the US special envoy Steve Witkoff is to fly to Moscow again, while "only" the Secretary of the Army remains for coordination with Ukraine. The same Dan Driscoll has warned Kiev that the country is facing an "imminent defeat".
«The message was basically: You are losing and you must accept the deal.»
Military victory or defeat on the battlefield - there are X more hurdles that could cause the efforts to fail. These are the stumbling blocks on the road to peace.
Who betrayed Witkoff's Moscow talk?
After Steve Witkoff's last visit to Russia, someone leaked recordings of telephone conversations between the Trump confidant and Vladimir Putin's special envoy Yuri Ushakov to "Bloomberg". This caused outrage because the initial version from the USA was more of a Russian wish list than a peace plan.
Now the question arises as to who passed on this information - and why. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) lists the possible actors.
For example, it is suspected that a European secret service is responsible. The aim would be to make the plan, which is far too friendly for Russia, public in order to prevent it from being pursued further.
The Europeans, on the other hand, suspect that the culprit is in Moscow. The idea behind it: By making public a plan with demands that Kiev can only reject, the Kremlin is positioning Ukraine as the party resisting peace.
According to the interpretation, Russia has an interest in continuing the war and is counting on the talks being broken off. A European source speculates that the Russians want to demonstrate through a leak that they have Witkoff in their pocket.
A third possibility put forward by the WSJ is a betrayal on the part of the Americans - by a person who fears that Trump could conclude a deal that favors Vladimir Putin.
Whoever is behind it: the person or persons could want to torpedo the peace negotiations again.
Putin's intransigence
On November 27, the Russian President spoke eloquently about the peace process. "Overall, we see that the American side is taking into account our position, which was discussed before Anchorage and after Alaska," says Vladimir Putin with a view to the summit with Trump in August.
"In some areas, we definitely need to sit down together and seriously discuss certain issues," the 71-year-old qualified during the state visit to Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, according to ABC News. However, a plan has not yet been agreed: That would be "pointless" in view of the current Ukrainian government, which Putin thus once again denies legitimacy.
The President insists on the withdrawal of Kiev's troops from Donetsk. Until this happens, there will not even be a ceasefire: "If the Ukrainian troops leave the occupied territory, the military operations will cease. If they do not leave, we will achieve this by force of arms". Russia is prepared to fight "to the last Ukrainian".
Tatiana Stanovaya from the Berlin think tank Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center finds clear words on X: "I see nothing at the moment that would force Putin to recalculate his goals or give up his core demands. These demands have remained essentially unchanged for over two years). He is more confident than ever about the situation on the battlefield."
Selensky also insists on core demands
Meanwhile, Zelenskyi's confidant Andriy Yermak emphasizes in an interview with "The Atlantic" that Kiev is not prepared to withdraw from territories that Russia does not even hold. "Not a single sane person would sign a document today to give up a territory," says the 54-year-old.
The reasoning: "As long as Zelensky is president, no one should expect us to give up territory. He will not cede any territory. The constitution forbids that. Nobody can do that unless they want to go against the Ukrainian constitution and the Ukrainian people."
It is one of the last interviews Jermak will give to the Western press for the time being: Following a house search by the anti-corruption authority, the head of the Ukrainian presidential office has to resign.
In fact, Ukraine can hardly afford to withdraw from the part of Donetsk that has not yet been conquered. This area contains a fortress belt with several heavily fortified towns. Based on the current course of the war, it would take Russia years to completely conquer Donetsk and incur massive losses.
If Donetsk were to fall into Putin's hands, Russia would not only have a relatively clear path to advance westwards again. Ukraine would also lose millions of citizens and economic opportunities. But Selenskyj has a problem on this point: Trump is fully in line with Putin.
On 29 November, the president simply brushed aside concerns from Kiev, but also from EU states, regarding Russia's desire to annex Donetsk: he recognized Moscow's desire to annex. A dilemma for Zelensky: is he violating the constitution and the will of the people - or does he risk losing any help from the USA?
Third parties who reject the plan
In the first version of the so-called peace plan, NATO was supposed to commit to no further expansion - and to rule out the inclusion of Ukraine. The Secretary General of the alliance cannot accept this.
"Russia has no say or right of veto on the question of who can become a member of NATO," emphasizes Mark Rutte in an interview with the Spanish newspaper "El Pais". At the same time, the Dutchman concedes: "But membership requires unanimity within the alliance."
The version of the plan revised in Geneva is "a good basis for further negotiations", but "separate, parallel discussions" with NATO are still required "on certain issues". Peace must ensure "that Putin never tries to attack Ukraine again".
Rutte knows: "If NATO membership is not an option, we must at least offer security guarantees that are strong enough to ensure that Russia never tries again." The EU takes the same line: instead of restricting Kiev's military, the plan should rather limit the size of Russia's army.
"If we want to prevent this war from continuing, then we should limit the Russian army and also its military budget," Euronews quoted the EU foreign policy chief as saying on November 26. "If you spend almost 40 percent [of the budget] on the military, then they will want to use it again, and that is a threat to all of us."
What about the sanctions?
The delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine and further US sanctions were just being discussed - but since the so-called peace plan became public, there has been no more talk of them. This annoys both the American-British financier Bill Browder and the pro-Ukrainian YouTube Jake Broe.
There was never a chance that this plan would be accepted, writes Browder on X. The noise is only a distraction: "Everyone has forgotten about the US sanctions against the main buyers of Russian oil." Corresponding draft legislation was already in the drawer. "If the US had gone through with it, Russia would have been out in six months."
"These sanctions against Russian oil companies were pretty effective," adds Broe. "What about more of them? How about sanctions against Russian banks?" We also no longer hear anything about the sanctions plans of several US senators. "They were put on hold because Russia wants peace," the American criticizes the "stalling tactics".
The British Guardian adds that the West could also impose sanctions on other industries that are essential for Russia's war machine. For example, there are only a handful of companies worldwide that produce mechanical lubricants. Without engine oil for tanks and vehicles, Moscow would have problems.
