Why Does the U.S. Think It Can Dictate Peace in Ukraine—With No Skin in the Game?
The Numbers Tell the Story
Since January 2025, the United States has appropriated exactly $0 in new aid for Ukraine. The $920 million per month in military equipment Ukraine still receives comes from Biden-era stockpiles. The $18.1 billion in loans comes from seized Russian assets, not American taxpayers. Trump froze foreign aid on day one, paused intelligence sharing after a February blowup with Zelenskyy, and repeatedly held up munitions shipments for “stockpile reviews.”
As of January 2025, all new assistance to Ukraine comes from Europe and other non-U.S. countries. Ukraine also produces 55% of its military equipment domestically. The diversification is complete.
So when Trump’s envoys sat down to negotiate Ukraine’s future, they did so with exactly zero leverage earned through actual support. Which makes the 28-point plan they produced with Russia all the more brazen.
The 28-Point Capitulation
Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev spent October and November crafting what can only be described as Russia’s Christmas list. The specifics are even worse than the headlines suggest:
Territorial surrender: Ukraine cedes all of Donbas—including the 14.5% it still controls after three years of fighting—plus Crimea and occupied portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia gets to “lease” mineral-rich Donbas land and collect “rent.” This legitimizes not just the 2022 invasion but the 2014 annexations we supposedly opposed.
Military emasculation: Cap Ukraine’s army at 400,000 troops—a 60% reduction from current levels. Ban long-range strike weapons. No foreign troops providing “security guarantees” that explicitly exclude American boots on the ground. In other words, disarm the victim while leaving the aggressor intact.
Cultural erasure: Recognize Russian language and Russian Orthodox Church status. Constitutional changes to accommodate Moscow’s preferences. This isn’t compromise—it’s rewarding aggression with cultural submission.
Ukraine wasn’t consulted until mid-November, when they received a briefing and, unsurprisingly, rejected it as capitulation. Zelenskyy called it “absurd.” His office termed it “provocation.” The plan reads less like a peace proposal and more like terms of surrender drafted by the winning side—except Russia hasn’t won.
The question isn’t whether this plan is realistic. It’s whether America has any standing to propose it—especially after what we made Ukraine do in 1994.
Here’s a fact worth remembering: In 1994, Ukraine held the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal—more warheads than Britain, France, and China combined. The United States, along with Russia and the UK, convinced them to give up every single weapon in exchange for security guarantees under the Budapest Memorandum. We promised to respect their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia has invaded twice already—Crimea and Donbas in 2014, then the full-scale invasion in 2022—and we’re asking Ukraine to accept a “peace plan” that legitimizes the conquest. We’re not just failing to honor our security guarantees—we’re actively helping the aggressor draft terms of surrender.
Why would Ukraine trust anything we say about their security now? We convinced them to disarm, and when the threat we promised to protect them from materialized, we showed up with nothing and told them to make the best deal they could with their invader.
That’s not diplomacy. That’s chutzpah. For those unfamiliar with the Yiddish term, chutzpah is when you kill both your parents and then throw yourself on the mercy of the court because you’re an orphan.
Be Careful What You Wish For
For decades, American politicians have complained that our allies don’t pay their fair share. They freeload on our defense spending. They need to step up and take responsibility. Trump made this a centerpiece of his first term, berating NATO members and threatening to withdraw if they didn’t meet spending targets.
Well, congratulations. They’re listening.
Europe and other non-U.S. countries are now providing 100% of Ukraine assistance. They’ve built independent coalitions. They’re making plans that don’t require Washington’s input or approval. Poland, the UK, Estonia, and Canada are negotiating directly with Ukraine about security guarantees and military support. They’re learning to function without American leadership.
This is what we said we wanted. Except we’re also hitting them with tariffs, threatening trade wars over steel and cars, and treating our closest allies like economic adversaries. You can’t tell them to step up and then act surprised when they tell you your opinion is no longer required.
As the saying goes, karma has everyone’s address. Let’s see where all of this leads. Probably not where the MAGA base thinks it’s going to.
The Trump Theater
It’s been clear that Trump is on Russia’s side. He wants the war to stop because it was a campaign promise to his base and he thinks there are some deals he can make when it ends. The lazy path to ending it is to give Russia everything it wants and Ukraine be damned.
An even more cynical sidebar to this latest theater is that this entire 28-point exercise may have been designed as something guaranteed to be rejected. MAGA people who don’t know Donbas from donuts think “compromise” sounds reasonable regardless of what’s being compromised. To them, Ukraine rejecting a “peace offer” makes Ukraine look like the problem. Trump gets to walk away, without doing the hard work of constructively helping to end the war, blame Ukrainian intransigence, and tell his supporters he tried to end the war but Zelenskyy wouldn’t be reasonable. This would give Trump political cover to abandon Ukraine entirely while claiming he satisfied his commitments.
What’s Next?
Zelenskyy said it plainly on November 20: “Peace must not come at Ukraine’s expense.”
We spent years telling Europe to take responsibility. Now they are, and they’re going to tell us to take a hike. Expect more of this to come in the future.