What we know about the Ukraine peace plan

Key Concepts

• Peace Plan/Frameworks: Evolving proposals for resolving the conflict, currently in draft stages.
• Partition of Ukraine: A potential outcome of the negotiations, involving territorial division.
• Russian Demands vs. Ukrainian Concessions: The core dynamic of the negotiation process.
• Russian Veto: The ultimate power Russia holds in approving any agreement.
• Working Paper/Draft Treaty: The current status of the document emerging from Geneva.
• Donbass: A key territorial region of contention.
• Neutrality: Ukraine's potential status regarding military alliances.
• NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a central issue in security discussions.
• Steve Witkoff/Jared Kushner: Figures involved in earlier, potentially flawed, negotiation attempts.
• Gaza Playbook: A reference to a previous negotiation strategy.
• Asymmetrical Negotiation: A situation where one party has more leverage or receives different advice.
• Leaks: The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, potentially to sabotage negotiations.
• WhatsApp Encryption: The security of communication platforms and its implications for leaks.
• Signals Intelligence: The practice of intercepting communications for intelligence gathering.
• Cap on Ukrainian Armed Forces: Potential limitations on the size of Ukraine's military.
• Reserveists: Military personnel not on active duty but available for recall.
• Constitutional Amendments: Potential requirements for Ukraine to change its foundational laws.
• Long-Range Missiles: Weapons systems like Taurus, Scalp, Storm Shadow, and Tomahawks.
• European Military Footprint: The presence of European troops on Ukrainian soil.
• US Security Guarantee: The commitment of the United States to Ukraine's security.
• Vague and Unenforceable Language: Concerns about the clarity and practicality of security commitments.

Peace Negotiations and Frameworks

The discussion centers on the current state of peace negotiations following the Geneva talks, which are described as a "moving target" with a constantly changing picture influenced by Russian actions. The process is characterized by Russian demands, Ukrainian concessions, and ultimately, a Russian veto. The document emerging from Geneva is considered a "working paper" and a "draft treaty to partition Ukraine." While some of the more "egregious moments" from earlier plans, involving Russian proposals and former US Special Representative Steve Witkoff, have been removed, major questions regarding the rest of Donbass, neutrality, NATO, and the partition line remain unresolved and are deferred to leaders.

Earlier Negotiation Attempts and Leaks

An earlier plan, attributed to Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and the Russians, is compared to the "Gaza playbook." A significant event was the leak of a conversation between Steve Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, the Russian representative, where Witkoff reportedly advised Ushakov on how to deal with President Trump. President Trump, however, viewed this as a "standard thing" and a "standard form of negotiation."

Key Argument/Perspective: Ed expresses concern that while Witkoff might be seeking a deal, he may not be offering Ukrainians the same level of advice or possibilities, leading to an "asymmetrical" negotiation.

The origin of these leaks is a subject of speculation. The conversations appear to have been intercepted from Ushakov's phone, possibly through WhatsApp, which is supposed to be end-to-end encrypted. This suggests someone had access to one of the endpoints. Theories range from American intelligence attempting to sabotage the deal, European dissatisfaction, Ukrainian involvement, or even hardliners within Russia. Shashank suggests that a professional Western intelligence service is unlikely to leak such information, as it would "burn their access." He posits that the leak might have occurred due to Ushakov playing the conversation on speakerphone in an unsecured location. The consensus is that someone is actively trying to sabotage the negotiation process.

Notable Quote: President Trump stated, "That's a standard thing, you know, because he's got to sell this to Ukraine. He's got to sell Ukraine to Russia. That's what he's that's what a dealmaker does. You got to say, 'Look, they want this. You got to convince them of this.' You know, that's a very standard form of negotiation."

Contours of the Potential Deal

The discussion then shifts to the specifics of what the current deal might entail, acknowledging that it is a dynamic situation with constant changes.

Key Points:

• Territorial Partition: The deal is described as effectively partitioning Ukraine, with the question being "where."
• Donbass: The current draft is not discussing the handover of a large chunk of territory in Donbass that Russia desires but has not yet secured. This territory is considered crucial due to existing defensive lines.
• Ukrainian Armed Forces Cap: The proposed cap on the size of Ukraine's armed forces has reportedly been raised from 600,000 to 800,000. This is seen as a more manageable number, especially considering current force levels and the inclusion of reservists.
• NATO Clause: The idea of Ukraine being constitutionally bound to never join NATO appears to have been removed.

Analysis of Impact: Shashank argues that even a cap of 600,000 on Ukraine's army would not be "very damaging at all," as most analysts believe Ukraine would not be able to afford a force much larger than that after the war. Similarly, he notes that even in the initial 28-point draft, there were no restrictions on Ukraine's possession of long-range missiles (e.g., Taurus, Scalp, Storm Shadow, Tomahawks). The primary concern highlighted is the original proposal's exclusion of any "European military footprint on Ukrainian soil," which could have significant consequences for Ukraine's post-war defense plans.

Data/Statistics:

• Initial proposed cap on Ukrainian armed forces: 600,000.
• Revised proposed cap: 800,000.
• Initial draft plan: 28 points.
• Current number of points (estimated): 18.

US Security Guarantee Concerns

A significant point of concern for Ed is the "vagueness of the US security guarantee." While the US inclusion of language implying participation in a security guarantee was seen as progress, the terms are described as "unenforceable" and vague. The combination of no European troops, a potential US-imposed deal on Ukraine, and the US providing the security guarantee leaves a feeling of unease.

Key Argument/Perspective: The vagueness and unenforceability of the US security guarantee, coupled with the exclusion of European troops, create a precarious situation for Ukraine's future security.

Synthesis/Conclusion

The current peace negotiations are in a highly fluid and uncertain state, with a draft treaty emerging that leans towards partitioning Ukraine. While some of the more extreme demands from earlier proposals have been softened, particularly regarding territorial concessions and constitutional limitations on NATO membership, significant challenges remain. The process is complicated by leaks and potential sabotage, highlighting the improvisational and unpredictable nature of the talks. The potential limitations on Ukraine's military size and the vagueness of the US security guarantee are key areas of concern, raising questions about the long-term viability and effectiveness of any eventual agreement. The exclusion of a European military presence on Ukrainian soil is also identified as a potentially impactful element for Ukraine's future defense capabilities.