Evaluating Leaked Ukraine - Russia Ceasefire Proposals: Part I - U.S. Proposal.
Last week, two different permanent ceasefire proposals were leaked: one allegedly from the U.S. as an offer to end the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the other representing a Ukrainian and European counterproposal.
At the time of the leaks, there were rumors about their authenticity.
But once Reuters published and verified both proposals, the legitimacy was established.
Given Reuters’ reputation for accuracy and veracity, it’s worth examining in detail what each side has actually proposed.
These documents offer a window into the strategic mindset of each actor and what they perceive as achievable both militarily and politically.
We begin with the U.S. proposal circulated amongst European allies, which consists of four sections: 1. Ceasefire, 2. Security Guarantees. 3. Territory and 4. Economics.
Here is the full document/framework:
The U.S. offer (according to Reuters)
Ceasefire
Permanent ceasefire
Both sides immediately engage in technical implementation negotiations
Analysis:
The ceasefire section includes two elements - neither of which Ukraine opposes.
In fact, both are echoed in the Ukrainian-European proposal (more on that later).
The divergence, once again, lies with Russia.
Moscow consistently delays or manipulates ceasefire terms, offering unilateral ceasefires only when convenient for PR - such as during Easter or around Russia’s Victory Day celebrations (coming up on May 9th), when Putin wants a smooth parade and humanitarian optics.
Ukraine, by contrast, has called for immediate ceasefire and is, in many ways, calling Russia’s bluff.
Even Donald Trump has begun suggesting that perhaps Putin is simply “tapping” him “along” and not genuinely seeking a ceasefire.
Security Guarantee
Ukraine receives robust security guarantee
Guarantor states will be an ad hoc grouping of European states plus willing non-European states
Ukraine will not seek to join NATO
Ukraine may pursue EU membership
Analysis:
This section introduces security guarantees - but the language is vague.
What does “robust” mean here?
Is it a NATO-style defense guarantee or simply a promise of weapons and support?
Given that neither Trump nor major European powers are likely to commit troops, and some like Germany are still hesitating over even supplying long-range missiles like Taurus, the credibility of this guarantee is weak.
Without a firm and enforceable promise of immediate and comprehensive arms transfers in case of renewed aggression, this part of the deal risks becoming another 1994 Budapest Memorandum - a broken promise.
In addition, there is a visible omission of the U.S. as one of the guarantors - European states + non-European willing states.
Who is willing here? Is the U.S. one of these willing?
Presumably, the only other country willing to provide this guarantee would be Turkey (and perhaps Japan/South Korea if it is limited to provision of weapons only).
But if the U.S. is missing, then the whole edifice is being built on a shaky foundation from the very outset: since these European states will be NATO members too.
What if the U.S. doesn’t provide a guarantee but a NATO ally like the U.K or France, or Finland is dragged into war against Russia?
What then? Will the U.S. not backstop its NATO allies then?
Finally, the part about Ukraine not seeking to join NATO is not very enforceable.
What if the new government in Kyiv is even more pro-NATO and there is a massive public support for a NATO membership?
And what if by 2028 a traditional Republican or a Democrat is in power in the U.S.?
What then?
From Putin’s perspective therefore this is not going to be satisfactory.
Perhaps if there was a NATO-wide declaration in addition to Ukraine’s own declaration (which was further enshrined via domestic legislation - just not going to happen..) that it won’t join or be accepted into membership ranks (if it did try to join), then maybe that then would be satisfactory.
But that would also never happen: France, UK, Germany, Turkey would never sign up to such a declaration.
So if Putin agrees to these terms, it will be in spite of the shakiness and unenforceability of them.
Territory
US provides de jure recognition of Russian control of Crimea
US provides de facto recognition of Russian control of Luhansk
US provides de facto recognition of Russian-controlled parts of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Kherson
Ukraine regains territory in Kharkiv Oblast
Ukraine regains control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant through US control and administration of the plant, with electricity distributed to both sides, and also the Kakhovka Dam
Ukraine enjoys unhindered passage on Dnieper River and control of the Kinburn Spit
Analysis:
Herein lies the most explosive content.
The U.S. proposal includes a de jure recognition of Russian control over Crimea.
This flies in the face of Trump’s own administration’s 2018 Crimea Declaration:
As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin’s claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law. In concert with allies, partners, and the international community, the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.
Such a reversal would be in direct contradiction of core U.S. values and foreign policy principles - and be in violation of the UN Charter that prohibits use of force to cause invasion and change territorial borders of sovereign nations.
More critically, it aligns the U.S. with a tiny group of international pariahs (Russia’s allies like North Korea and Nicaragua - note that even China is not doing this…) that recognize Crimea as Russian.
Worse, Lavrov’s latest comments announce that Russia is now demanding international (not just the U.S.) recognition not only of Crimea but of all currently Russian-held Ukrainian territory in Eastern Ukraine.
Given that this is a blatantly outrageous and unworkable demand, this suggests Moscow expects (or perhaps more accurately wants) talks to fail - and is positioning itself to resume or escalate military operations instead.
Also proposed: Ukrainian access to the Kinburn Spit and Dnieper River, both vital for commerce, and shared control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
These proposals may have strategic merit, but from Russia’s viewpoint, they are unacceptable under current battlefield conditions: they would involve Russia accepting Ukrainian troops into hitherto Russia-controlled territory.
(side note: Putin would also likely make a counterproposal that they (he and Trump) should just operate Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant together - appealing to his most mercantilist instincts.)
What we now have is Putin escalating demands while Trump is desperate for a diplomatic win (no matter how bad the actual deal is).
Either Trump accepts maximalist terms, or Lavrov backtracks - an embarrassing outcome for Moscow’s diplomacy and a massive blow to their credibility.
Economics
United States and Ukraine will implement economic cooperation/minerals agreement
Ukraine to be fully reconstructed and compensated financially
Sanctions on Russia resulting from this conflict since 2014 will be removed
U.S.-Russian economic cooperation on energy and other industrial sectors
Analysis.
Economics The economic chapter opens with a U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement, which oddly appears in a U.S.-Russia peace deal.
This suggests possible future triangulation - perhaps extending to U.S.-Russia mineral cooperation in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.
It gets stranger.
The U.S. would promise reconstruction and financial compensation for Ukraine—but from whom?
Russia will never accept this, unless compelled via seized assets in Europe or IMF-imposed conditionalities.
Finally, sanctions: the U.S. proposal suggests removing all sanctions dating back to 2014 - essentially rewarding Russia’s two invasions and recognizing gains from both.
This is a complete non-starter for Europeans and Ukrainians.
Trump seems to view this as a Nixon-to-China moment (a reverse Kissinger move to pull Russia from China’s grip).
But it’s a fantasy. Instead of weakening Russia’s alignment with China, it would embolden Putin’s expansionism.
Putin has shown time and again that any sign of Western division or weakness is met with greater maximalist demands.
(side note: latest evidence being Lavrov’s insistence that all Russia-controlled regions be granted a de jure/formal recognition status).
In the upcoming cables we shall analyze the European and Ukrainian proposals - where there is alignment with Washington, where there is deep transatlantic divergence, and how (if the deep fractures are left unfixed) this could fracture the Western alliance for years.