Ukraine Conflict - In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only war!

[Sarex]

Funny that the US is charging cash for brokering the deal, plus any profits that come out of the reconstruction.

[ShadySands]

Seems on brand

[Sarex]

4 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Seems on brand

Trump charging a percentage of that cash deal would be cherry on the top.

[kanisatha]

This is actually worse than Munich. At least then, the French and British leaders didn't include provisions of cash payouts for themselves in the sellout of the Czechs. I expect the Ukrainians will reject, knowing full well it will cost them a lot in Trump's retribution but that will still be better than complete surrender and loss of sovereignty. The real question, though, is how will London, Paris, Berlin, and Warsaw react? Will they also join in Trump's sellout of the Ukrainians?

[HoonDing]

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

[pmp10]

23 hours ago, kanisatha said:

This is actually worse than Munich. At least then, the French and British leaders didn't include provisions of cash payouts for themselves in the sellout of the Czechs. I expect the Ukrainians will reject, knowing full well it will cost them a lot in Trump's retribution but that will still be better than complete surrender and loss of sovereignty. The real question, though, is how will London, Paris, Berlin, and Warsaw react? Will they also join in Trump's sellout of the Ukrainians?

Trump is trying to order them about on how to spend their money so obviously they will resist. 
Not that they have any intention to fill the void that US might leave behind. 

[Zoraptor]

If there's one thing Europe has acquiesced to frequently it's Trump ordering them how to spend their money. Indeed, that's almost certainly one of the reasons the slush fund provisions are there for realz rather than being laughed at. The EU/ US (and UK) trade deal is riddled with 'EU will spend this, EU will do this' provisions quite apart from accepting the tariffs. At the time of course we were told getting the US to keep helping Ukraine was one of the reasons for von der Leyen's capitulation.

(I am of course of the opinion that the agreement is more realistic than spouting pie in the sky 'stay the course/ more of the same but harder' rhetoric and insisting on conditions Russia would never agree to as if you're winning. But it's exactly the sort of agreement you'd expect from Trump, especially after he's been encouraged to see the EU and Europe as pushovers. In the end, if you fold every time because standing up to Trump is hard then having your opinions marginalised is the obvious result precisely because you've told Trump that you'll fold when pressed)

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-ukraine-news-11-22-25

"President Donald Trump said the US peace plan presented to Ukraine is not the final offer to end the war with Russia.

“No, not my final offer,” Trump told reporters just now. “We’d like to get to peace. It should’ve happened a long time ago.”

“The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened. We’re trying to get it ended. One way or the other we have to get it ended,” he added. "

 

So despite all the drama and media coverage this is not the final or definitive peace plan that Ukraine " has to accept "

Im just surprised people still respond  to these types of Trump comments or leaked information. We have been through all of this so many times around the war in Ukraine 

 

 

[Lexx]

It's just not the final offer because everyone was crapping on it. If we are honest, this was the same offer as all the times before, nothing changed. 

[kanisatha]

Big drama this morning following from claims that Sec. Rubio personally told several senators the plan came from the Russians and is their wish list. Then, the State Dept issued an unusually strong rebuttal claiming what the senators were saying is "blatantly false." Rubio himself also said in a social media post the senators had "got him wrong," and that the plan is a US-authored plan taking into account input from both the Russians and Ukrainians. Then the Ukrainians said they had never been consulted on the plan and only saw its details when it was presented to them a few days ago as a take-it-or-leave-it plan, with a threat of an end to US support if they refused to accept it.

Personally, I think the issue here is that Rubio is increasingly finding himself in a bind. He is the one guy (along with Wittkof, and that's why he has already announced he is quitting in January) in the Administration who is principled, and is unhappy with constantly having to go against his own principles in order to be a loyal team player within the Administration. That's what's playing out here, and I expect Rubio will call it quits pretty soon. The only reason he's stayed this long is because he gave up a very good and secure senate seat to take this job, and will now find himself without an alternative political career path for him.

I did also see an Axios report providing more details of the deal. It does include a provision that explicitly says the US and European states will provide a security guarantee to Ukraine "equivalent to NATO's Article 5 guarantee." That, at least, is something. But for me, including in my capacity as an international security academic, the provisions limiting Ukraine's military size and weapons, and barring European states from deploying troops inside Ukraine are the truly bad provisions. The territorial concessions. as despicable as they are, cannot at this stage be avoided, because it is indisputable that Ukraine is losing and the Russians are winning on the battlefield.

Edited 6 hours ago by kanisatha

[Elerond]

2 hours ago, kanisatha said:

I did also see an Axios report providing more details of the deal. It does include a provision that explicitly says the US and European states will provide a security guarantee to Ukraine "equivalent to NATO's Article 5 guarantee." That, at least, is something. But for me, including in my capacity as an international security academic, the provisions limiting Ukraine's military size and weapons, and barring European states from deploying troops inside Ukraine are the truly bad provisions. The territorial concessions. as despicable as they are, cannot at this stage be avoided, because it is indisputable that Ukraine is losing and the Russians are winning on the battlefield.

As it is, it does not provide any security guarantee, as it gives any signatory country to decide how they will help in case Ukraine is invaded. No troops, no weapons, no sanctions, nothing concrete is promised and as it also means that Ukraine can't join any military alliance not accepted by Russia it will most likely give even less security than guarantees given in Budapest Memorandum.

[Zoraptor]

That's more than a little overstated. Ukraine demonstrably got 2/3 of the things listed without any security guarantee other than the BM, if you count that. They'd get the same, at least, again.

[Malcador]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/11/23/leaked-europe-rival-peace-plan-ukraine-full-russia-war/

European plan, that seems like a lead balloon

[Zoraptor]

Fun game: replace every instance of Ukraine in that plan with Palestine.

Does make you wonder if the whole point of that proposal is to make Euro politicians feel good about themselves. Doesn't even have the advantage of 'standing firm' or whatever, since it's notably worse for Ukraine than their previous 'proposals' that have been floated. 

I do rather like the blatant Trump sops though. Freeze along current lines- except Trump gets the energy infrastructure held by Russia.

Edited 1 hour ago by Zoraptor

[Elerond]

51 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

That's more than a little overstated. Ukraine demonstrably got 2/3 of the things listed without any security guarantee other than the BM, if you count that. They'd get the same, at least, again.

Ukraine did have security guarantees from USA, UK and Russia also later on France and China promised to guarantee it borders as part of deal stop all nuclear weapon research.

But any way it will be much more difficult to put sanctions and give weapons in future by European nations.

Europe's political climate has changed from 2022 and support for EU level sanctions has dropped and also EU's Russia supporting block has got new members, in 2022 there was only Hungary, now there is also Slovakia, and in Czech the new prime minister Babis is not keen to put sanctions on Russia. 

Weapons are also much more difficult question now, for now EU countries have mostly given weapons from their old stock piles, but with modern weaponry countries have mostly said that they don't want to escalate the conflict.

So in possible future conflict support is less certain and in case where USA is reluctant to offer support, then support that you can except from European Nato members, maybe next to nothing if security guarantees that they need to offer aren't clearly spelled out in the peace deal. 

[Zoraptor]

We've done this before, but the BM is not a security guarantee since it isn't a treaty. It has all the legal weight of a new years' resolution. It's also been abrogated by every signatory to some extent- China the least- people just tend to ignore that it 'prevents' western interference in Belarus every bit as much as Russian interference in Ukraine. Article 5 does have legal weight though, which is why the 'article 5 like' usage is important in either document.

The EU does actively extend/ renew the sanctions every six months, apart from the 19 packages that have been approved unanimously including one within the last couple of months. That includes Hungary, every time, and Slovakia every time. Orban's position is a lot closer to the old UK one- we want carve outs, to benefit Hungary- than actually being pro Russian. ie if he were pro Russian he'd veto the sanctions, not approve them. It was also the old stridently anti Russian Slovak government that got Slovakia's carve outs, not Fico. They obviously weren't pro Russian; Orban largely makes a convenient scapegoat for the sanctions not being anywhere near as effective as Europe hoped. That does make it beholden on you to show how it would actually be different to now; because per above they both approve sanctions, now.

The weapons, I personally kind of agree that that reflects reality. But, at least in theory Europe itself does not agree at all. We get monthly news of supposed modern weaponry deals. 100 Rafales/ SAMPT++ this month, 100 Gripens++ last month, and there was a UK announcement a month before. German IRIST++ before that. Personally, yes, I reckon those deals are pie in the sky for a continent that cannot even spin up artillery production over nearly 4 years. But europe seems to expect people to take them seriosuly at least.

(with the caveat that both documents are leaked/ 'leaked' so not definitive, where appropriate)

Edited 24 minutes ago by Zoraptor