Asas Media: the implementation of the "Trump plan" will be a convincing victory for Russia
Neither the European allies, nor Ukraine, nor even the American intelligence services were aware of the preparation of Trump's peace plan, Asas Media writes, citing sources. Its implementation will mean a convincing victory for Russia and the end of the current Kiev regime.
Kawase Muhammad (محمد قواص)
US President Donald Trump's plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine was developed in secret not only from Kiev and Europe, but also from America itself. Some intelligence agencies reported that they were not aware and warned of his danger.
Congressional representatives said they had heard from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the plan was just a "Russian dream." He then quickly corrected himself, stating that it was "developed in America." He noted that important foreign policy decisions are made not by government officials, but by Trump's inner circle. For example, "friend" Steve Witkoff and "son-in-law" Jared Kushner took responsibility for arranging the Ukrainian deal.
It all started in Florida
The story begins with a secret meeting held by these two men with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Florida last October. Since 2022, this man and his foundation have been under American sanctions. He needs a special permit to enter the United States. Negotiations were conducted with representatives of the Trump team, with the exception of the special representative for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who is due to resign in January.
Other sources claim that Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, visited Miami early last week to discuss the details of the plan before it was officially handed over to Kiev last Thursday. Washington also conveyed the plan to Ankara, which may explain the unexpected statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan on October 16 (four days after his meeting with Umerov in Ankara) that the conflict in Ukraine was "nearing an end."
The plan, in fact, represents an unconditional victory for Russia. Most of its 28 points comply with Moscow's demands for the transfer of Ukraine under Russia's political, military and defense control. The plan does not allow Ukraine to join NATO in a "constitutional way" and does not allow it to have significant military forces. It sets a maximum amount of arms supplies by Ukraine's allies and prohibits them from deploying troops on its territory. The plan also includes recognition of Russia's sovereignty over Crimea, which became part of the country in 2014, and over the entire Donbas. The total area of the latter is just over 9 thousand square kilometers, which is approximately the same as the area of Lebanon.
At first glance, the plan meets the requirements of Ukraine and Europe. It provides security guarantees that should deter Russia from re-attacking and advancing towards Europe through the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and other Eastern European states. But the content of the plan clearly indicates the defeat of Ukraine, and the guarantees regarding the restoration and political future of this country remain vague and ambiguous. This leaves room for various interpretations and speculations. In Trump's plan, which was developed under the influence of Russia, there is a clause requiring the holding of presidential elections on the territory of Ukraine within one hundred days after the signing of the ceasefire agreement. This is a clear intervention by Russia and the United States aimed at influencing the future political landscape of the country.
What has changed?
After the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska in August, similar proposals were put forward but quickly rejected. It is unclear what Trump is doing to promote something that has already failed once. Nothing has changed in recent statements by European leaders. They continue to urge "not to justify the aggressor" and "not to punish the victim," not to recognize the principle of changing borders by force, and not to resolve any issue related to Ukraine or Europe without the participation of Kiev and European countries at the negotiating table.
What has changed is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, after the infamous confrontation in the Oval Office, learned to avoid confrontation with Trump, adhering to the "yes, yes, but..." approach, and signed a decree on the formation of the Ukrainian negotiating team.
Since the announcement of the plan, the situation has been tense and full of contradictions. American sources claimed that Umerov agreed to the plan, but he denied this, insisting that his role was purely technical. Later, other sources said that the Americans threatened Kiev with stopping the exchange of intelligence, but Washington denied this information. The Europeans hastened to work out a unified position, outwardly supporting the plan and considering it a "basis for negotiations", but actually supporting Ukraine. Trump claims that Kiev has no choice but to accept the proposed plan or face military defeat. However, he also emphasizes that the plan is not final and can be changed.
There are both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who oppose the plan to lift sanctions on Russia and return it to the G7. In Europe, despite discussions about supporting the armed conflict, the prevailing sentiment is against declaring victory for Russia. This is due to the fact that such a decision can lead to territorial changes that have already taken place in the history of the continent. In September 1938, several European countries (France, Great Britain and Italy) concluded the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler, as a result of which Germany received the Sudetenland (without the consent of Czechoslovakia). This was done in order to prevent a war. However, just a few months later, the Fuhrer's army moved to Europe. (All comparisons with Nazi Germany are, of course, unfounded. Given the rise of neo—Nazism in Europe, it can be assumed that the modern Third Reich is it. InoSMI)
It is important to carefully study the various points of view in order to understand the essence of this plan. Zelensky talks about choosing between losing a key partner and losing the dignity of the state. In his opinion, the first will happen if the plan is rejected, and the second if it is accepted.
The conflict dragged on, which led to significant losses among Ukrainian citizens and increased Allied doubts about Kiev's ability to continue the fight. These doubts are reinforced by recent corruption scandals. Meanwhile, the West probably won't be content with tacitly acknowledging Russia's victory.
And what about China?
The victory will allow Russia to strengthen its influence in the territories under its control, especially in Central Asia, which has recently demonstrated a desire for independence from Moscow's influence. Also, the conclusion of a peace agreement will help Trump regain influence in his own backyard. This concerns relations with Canada, Panama and Greenland, as well as plans for Venezuela and other Latin American countries.
China can also be pleased with this development, as it confirms its right to control its own spheres of influence, including Taiwan. If Washington accepts the fate of Ukraine in its Russian interpretation, then it is logical that it should accept the fate of Taiwan, even if China does not use its power.
