Putin says the 28 point plan isn’t good enough, but could be a basis for peace if Trump can get Ukraine to agree. Ukraine says no one will say Ukraine does not want peace.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Peace at any price is not peace.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, November 21, 2025 - 11:17 pm: Edit

This plan is like . . . maybe after the Fall of France, Churchill should have given Hitler control of Malta, Gibraltar, and Egypt, and also agreed to reduce the size of its fleet and air force in return for a promise of peace. But Hitler has to return Bordeaux to the French. The US promises to support Britain if Hitler attacks again. But it does not send any forces.

Oh yeah, also amnesty for all Nazis.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 01:51 am: Edit

Jeff Wile, the only western democracies doing any pushing for this is the US. This is the second attempt at forcing Ukraine to submit to the forces of evil and the EU (and probably Canada, but I know nothing about their stance except it's not the same as the US.) fought against it then as they will do now.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 02:00 am: Edit

Maybe Trump is more clever than any of us give him credit for. Perhaps this stupid plan is not intended to stop the war but to convince the EU to take over paying for and supplying it?

Or maybe Trump just hates war and is willing to end any war at any price.

If I were Ukraine I would not trust this idea past the next US presidential election.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 02:12 am: Edit

Svc, or the next Episode of the Epstein Files.

You know, they tried give Russia Ukraine on a plate before and it didn't work then. Why is the Trump administration trying again.? The only reason I can think of is factional infighting in the WH

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 02:26 am: Edit

I don't see any grounds to support a theory of factional infighting at the White House, and there is nothing in the Epstein files that implications Trump in anything. (And that subject had better never come up again in this topic.)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 06:50 am: Edit

"Poland got security promises" - and if the strength of the Security agreement is as good as that - I doubt Ukraine would have anything to worry about?

Both France and the UK put their names to the deal and followed through with their threat.

(I accept the Czech deal was different - but the UK probably was in a worse position for War in 1938 than the Germans was?).

Thats perhaps the Trillion Dollar question - if Germany knew France and the UK would Declare War - would they have attacked Poland?

(About the best I can think of, is there was enough 'yes' people telling Hitler to attack they would have still done it - but a small number of people saying 'we are not strong enough and France and UK have declared this is a non-moverable line (which our Diplomates state will NOT be moved), lets sabre rattle and try and get some land through diplomatic means...' might have been enough to stop it).

On the Deal - Putin seems to have accepted it - and Europe has said 'don't' (and being a European I think I can say, we wasn't bothered much for the first two years of this war.... are we relevant now? - I don't think so!).

So all down to the Ukrainians - and being the Las Vegas F1 Grand Prix weekend - will they put eveything on Black and hope Red (or 0!) doesn't come up - remerbering the famous quote - "the House always wins".... - I doubt it?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 10:04 am: Edit

Yeah, would have worked better if Poland, Britain, and France had all halved the size of their militaries like this deal requires of Ukraine.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 10:47 am: Edit

OK maybe we need to look at the foreign policy from a different view. Some have estimated that Russia has spent a trillion dollars, I dont know how accurate that is, but the estimate is that the US has spent between 130 and 180 billion. Is it a good deal to make an offer that no one will accept to keep a war going that has to be a real drag on the Russian economy as well as depleteing their military strength. If they have to keep spending at the present rate what are thy not developing for the future.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 11:08 am: Edit

The Trump strategy is pretty consistent with the idea that there is no reason for continued pouring of US resources into a Ukrainian conflict that is already over. The land Russia has occupied is now Russia. There is no appetite for the kind of dramatically escalated military involvement that would be required to liberate the occupied land, and no appetite for the extended and escalated global risk (including nuclear).

If the European nations in concert with Ukraine have other ideas, it's time to "put your money where your mouth is" as it were. It is very easy to advocate for (or perhaps even demand?) the US to fight and pay for this war. It is quite another thing to "man up" and take on the full military, industrial, and financial burdens, as well as effectively manage the escalated risks. And please note that another round of European talks and commitments does not actually equate to European military activity that actually pushes Russia out of Ukraine.

Am I happy with this? Not really. But it is what it is and if the conflict were over and the bombs stopped flying in both directions the situation would be better. I'm sorry we can't take all the captured territories back, depose Putin, pacify Russia, and save the universe. Realpolitik is not a Tom Clancy novel.

And again, the idea that Russia controls and owns all the captured territory is not a major shift in thinking or capitulation but just the recognition of a painfully obvious reality. For Crimea in particular, for four consecutive administrations (Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump) the US has elected to just let Russia have and keep Crimea. It's not worth it to the US to create a military situation to push them out. And that reality is becoming clear with respect to the 2022-2025 captured territories as well.

--Mike (with deep respect for my fellow forum participants who may think differently)

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Mike, for the most part, the US does not have to. Ukraine can do it with intel support and weapons the US gets paid for.

Have you been following what has happened to Russian energy infrastructure lately?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 12:02 pm: Edit

google "military aid to Ukraine by country and gdp"

Statista has a nice graphic.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 01:41 pm: Edit

. . . that's the past. The Trump Admin is now insisting that Europe pay for military equipment. Europe is doing so.

The US obviously pays to generate intel that it supplies. But it would generate most of that intel anyway, regardless of the war.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I am fine with Europe paying to continue the war and with the US providing intel and F16s and selling other stuff for cash.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Sec. of State Rubio rowed back on this plan when speaking with senators today, claiming that the Russians gave the 28-point plan to Special Envoy Witkoff, which the U.S. then relayed to the Ukrainians in its role as an intermediary, and that the U.S. had no part in its drafting. This is per Senators Rounds (R-SD) and King (I-ME), who were present for the meeting. This contradicts statements from elsewhere in the administration, including Pres. Trump himself.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 22, 2025 - 10:50 pm: Edit

I found this on a mainstream liberal leftwing major media site...

The 28-point Ukraine peace plan was authored by the United States, specifically Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, in collaboration with Kremlin aide Kirill Dmitriev. While the US government states it includes input from both Ukraine and Russia, some sources report it was drafted by the Trump administration and the Kremlin without Ukrainian involvement. It may be that the Ukrainian involvement was in prior negotiations and so it is true that they had involvement and also true that they did not have input into the current draft, which had clearly evolved from previous plans.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 06:30 am: Edit

Six decades ago a very leftwing history teacher of mine insisted that "there is no such thing as good war or a bad peace." In that sense, ending this Ukraine War is a (barely) good thing.

Donetsk and Luhansk were never Ukrainian; they were Russian provinces added to Ukraine by Stalin to make sure Russians ran Ukraine. The "Ukrainian" generals in the highest ranks of the Soviet (Russian) Army were from there and only pretending to be token Ukrainians.

Crimea is important to Russia and they aren't going to give it up unless defeated. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are the land bridge Russia needs to reach Crimea. You aren't getting those back without defeating Russia, which Ukraine has not done and is never going to do.

Do I like rewarding Putin with a land grab? No.
Do I like continuing the war forever? No.

Nobody has a plan that has any realistic chance to achieve a better outcome.

Is this plan going to hold up under the next weak US president? (I am not going into the two weak US presidents who gave Russia Ukraine and the opening for this war, and neither is anyone else.)

I hate this plan. It stinks. It might be the best that can be had. I would want to base two US divisions in or very near Ukraine.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 08:43 am: Edit

On who created the plan and the confusion?

Only thing I can think of... is

If the plan works - I created it and I want all the credit.

If the plan doesn't work - 'you' created it and you can take all the blame.

The players are unsure which way this will go and so will provide evidence 'it was there' plan if it works and enough denial if it doesn't?

I agreee - having a strong force 'within a stones throw' of Ukraine will be needed - not nessarily being sufficent to military enough to stop any actual attack, but demonstates you have enough resolve to support fully the peace deal (and have both sides sign it) , but also 'skin in the game' to keep the other side honest?

(i.e. Like the NATO trip forces in the Baltic States).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 09:20 am: Edit

SVC, I just checked on Wikipedia. The 1991 vote for Ukrainian independence was 54% in Crimea, 83% in Donetsk, and also 83% in Luhansk.

Plenty of native Russian speaking Ukrainians, including Zelensky for example, want nothing to do with Russia.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 09:45 am: Edit

In the hours since the senators spoke with the press on this topic, Sec. Rubio has flipped 180 degrees and is now publicly stating that the U.S. authored the plan. Best guess here is that he was read the riot act by the President.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Jessica, A guess, anyway.

Will, self-determination is a good thing, but you could probably get a “we don’t want to be part of Russia” majority in about 2/3 of the Russian Federation.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 04:43 pm: Edit

To be fair - 2/3rds could be used for several Western nations - just look at the French or British Governments.

Spain and the Basque region.

Italy.

Does Canada or the USA want to remain 100% Canada or the USA?

Depends who you ask, how you ask and 'when' you ask?

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Many Russian citizens have been voting with their feet for years. Even before the war with Ukraine, millions of Russians chose to leave to get more political freedom and economic opportunity elsewhere. That is even more true since the war began.

It's particularly damaging to Russia since the leaving population is disproportionally younger, more intelligent/educated, and more ambitious. Those are the exact kind of people a country needs to grow and prosper.

--Mike

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, November 23, 2025 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Quoting a quote: "there is no such thing as good war or a bad peace."

Okay, so it's a bad thing to go to war to stop international slave trading, for example.

Nice to know.


Garth L. Getgen