World Review: Will the 28-Point "Peace" Plan end the War in Ukraine?
A synopsis of this week's edition of World Review
Each week, I host a video podcast called World Review with Ivo Daalder where journalists from major news outlets around the world join me to discuss the latest global news stories of the week.
Today, November 21, we discussed the breaking news on a new US plan to end the war in Ukraine. Joining me this week were Susan Glasser of The New Yorker, James Harding of The Observer, and Peter Spiegel of The Washington Post.
“World Review is always fascinating. I love the fact that you can get journalists from around the world to participate since zoom is the medium.”
— A Subscriber to America Abroad
While I encourage you to watch or listen to the episode (and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!), here are a few interesting things I took away from our discussion:
On Wednesday, reports emerged of a new US peace plan that would end the war in Ukraine. Drawn up by Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Peace Envoy, apparently following three days of consultations with Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy, the plan seeks to end the war by giving Russia much of what it wants, Ukraine the promise of a security guarantee, and the United States significant financial benefits. The 28-point plan was officially handed over to President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev by Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll on Thursday. On Friday, Vice President JD Vance talked to Zelensky and reportedly told the Ukrainian president to accept the proposal by Thursday, as is, or the US would end all military cooperation with Ukraine. Immediately after the call, Zelensky spoke to the Ukrainian people that the nation faced “very difficult choice: either losing our dignity, or risk losing a key partner.”
Susan commented that the plan should not be seen as a surprise. It is fully consistent with the views of Donald Trump and JD Vance on the conflict. Both opposed extending military and economic assistance to Ukraine before they were elected. Vance led the opposition to this in the US Senate. During his first term, Trump had told Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, that Ukraine wasn't a real country because friends of his in Mar-a-Lago had explained that everyone spoke Russian there (sic)! During his campaign in 2024, Trump claimed that the war would never have happened if he’d been president and promised to end it in “one day” after his election. He set out to do that in his first weeks in office by trying to put the squeeze on Ukraine and give Moscow much of what it wanted. The infamous confrontation in the Oval Office in February was an indication of what Trump wanted and how he thought the conflict would end. “You don’t have the cards,” he told Zelensky. The 28-point plan reflects the president’s view that he can force Zelensky to accept a deal that would give Russia territory it doesn’t even occupy, limit the scope of Ukraine’s army and capabilities after the war, and even impose a new security order on the rest of Europe. But none of this, Susan noted, should be a surprise.
How has the rest of the world reacted to the plan and the push for a quick acceptance by Ukraine? European leaders were completely caught off guard. There had been no consultation, and the plan leaked even before many had seen it. The leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and the EU reached out to Zelensky to give Ukraine its full support. “Nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine,” they solemnly declared. But there was silence on what they would do. James reported that European leaders saw the plan as a capitulation—and unacceptable. He suggested that the choice for Europe was either Witkoff or the West. If the plan were to die a slow death, that would mean Witkoff’s influence would start to wane, perhaps replaced by people with a deeper background in diplomacy and history. But if the plan stands, that would effectively mean the end of the West. The idea of the West is built around the inviolability of sovereignty, which the United States was seeking to deny for Ukraine by forcing it to accept Russia’s forceful dismantlement of its country and limits on how to ensure its own security. It is also built on the idea that security within the West is indivisible—that a threat against one is a threat against all. Yet, the US plan, which distinguished between NATO and the United States (as if the US isn’t a founding and leading member of NATO), effectively called Washington’s commitment to alliances into question. Walking away from Ukraine would make it difficult, if not possible, for Poland or the Baltic states to believe that the United States would defend them if attacked.
Given all these negative implications, why push the plan now? Peter wondered whether political weakness — of both Trump and Zelensky — might be part of the explanation. Trump needs a win, and the biggest foreign policy win that has eluded him so far is ending the war in Ukraine that he had promised to end in one day. Trump has been weakened by the election losses earlier this month, his caving to Congress on the Epstein files, and an economic situation that is beginning to eat into his popularity (as indicated by the polls). Zelensky, meanwhile, is facing the biggest corruption scandal of his administration. Not only does the scandal implicate people close to him, but it involves the misuse of monies that were to be used to defend the energy infrastructure Ukrainians need to keep the lights on and heat going through a cold winter. Clearly, the White House thought this was an opportune time to press Ukraine to agree to a deal. That may well have been a miscalculation, however. The last thing Zelensky can afford is a political debate over the future of Ukraine, which under this plan, would be dire indeed. If anything, his negotiating room has been reduced rather than increased. And if the US pressed too hard and Zelensky were forced to step down, the person taking his place would be far more likely to take a harder line on peace than Zelensky has so far.
All of which means that the issue bears watching in the days and weeks ahead.
Those are my quick takes on this week’s episode here on World Review. To get the full story, please listen to the episode itself.
Peter do you might not think that talk of Zelenskyy having to deal with corruption is Russian propaganda? Surely by now you must be aware that Putin is trying to get Ukraine to stop getting support! Witkoff is STILL trumps business partner btw he knows nothing about Russia or the way they think. HE only goes there without his interpreter and uses theirs. Jeez! He's so stupid! It's all business and Putin is telling Witkoff to tell his puppet that he needs to step up or no more money! The "plan" is a cut and paste from some of the Gaza "plan" neither side seems to understand that Putin want's the USSR back much more than than trump wants Ukraines minerals so he can get the money. As for the UK not sharing intelligence, could it be that America is using their intel to commit criminal acts and that UK doesn't want any part of it? This isn't a "serious plan" and everybody knows it. Susan I was impressed by your knowledge of trump which might give your some problems down the line because trump really really hates any media NOT talking about him like he's the best thing since sliced bread, especially women! trump will always do as he's told by Putin and Witkoff will always try to pass that message on. The Alaska trip was I suspect issued to trump as a threat by Putin. Not only does he know trump like an open book, don't we all, (eye-roll) but he got his marching orders from Putin in that meeting. Those faces that came out off that meeting were as ashen faced! Except Putin. He was still smirking. If Putin and MBS can bring the USA down both Russia, UAE and China will be doing handstands! Not to worry James, Linda and Peter because trump will resign in January 2026 because he want's "to spend more time with the family" pass the sick bag. There are only Russian and Ukrainian "politicians" working on this issue because the whole thing is flying right of trump and his administrations head! Trump brought this about by not defending Ukraine as other countries did. We know why but that doesn't take away from the damage he has caused. I'm not sure who said this but "War was not a particularly smart way to describe global issues, especially when politicians, rather than grunts on the ground ere calling the shots."