1,371 words
On November 20-21, 2025, the Trump administration unveiled a draft 28-point peace plan aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine. The proposal was supposedly drafted primarily by US special envoy Steve Witkoff (a friend of Trump with no diplomatic qualifications), with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner (Trump’s son in law, who has no diplomatic qualifications), and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev. However, the plan reads like it was dictated by Putin. Indeed, it is basically a demand for Ukrainian surrender.
There was no input from Ukraine or our European allies. The proposal was presented as a fait accompli to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy by US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in Kyiv. Zelenskyy is currently dealing with a political crisis. Trump evidently thinks that he can be strong-armed into capitulation. Trump wants Ukraine to accept the proposal by Thanksgiving (November 27). Now he is threatening to cut off weapons systems and intelligence sharing.
These are the central demands.
Ukraine must cede full control of Crimea (annexed by Russia in 2014). Ukraine must also cede the entire Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), including areas Ukraine still holds (about 14.5% of Donbas). Moreover, Ukraine must also cede additional unspecified eastern Ukrainian land beyond the current lines of occupation. The United States would then “de facto” recognize all these territories as Russian.
Of course, the United States cannot recognize these territories as “de jure” Russian, because changing borders by means of war is against international law. The “right of conquest” has not been recognized since the post-WWI era.
Our movement, of course, is rife with people who think that the right of conquest is wholesome and that international law is the purest faggotry.
But Trump’s proposal goes beyond allowing borders to be changed by conquest. It also demands that Russia be given territories that it has not been able to conquer, including a string of fortifications in Donbas that the Russians have been unable to breach. If Ukraine surrenders these fortifications, it will be much more vulnerable to the next Russian war. What is that, conquest bros, except the purest of faggotry on Trump’s part?
Trump has done the impossible. He has crafted a peace proposal that both Woodrow Wilson and Conan the Barbarian would regard as morally obscene. But it gets worse.
Trump also demands that Ukraine’s armed forces be capped at a reduced size (exact numbers are not specified). There is no mention of capping Russia’s armed forces. The obvious aim is to make Ukraine vulnerable to Russian aggression and blackmail. Putin has not been able to destroy the Ukrainian army, so once again Trump offers to give Putin through diplomacy what he could not win through war. What would Conan say about that?
Trump also demands that Ukraine be permanently barred from NATO. NATO, moreover, will not deploy troops to Ukraine. Again, this is simply designed to make Ukraine vulnerable to Russian aggression and blackmail.
In exchange for surrendering its ability to defend itself, Ukraine is promised “robust” U.S.-led security guarantees modeled on NATO’s Article 5 (in short, NATO, without NATO), including a “decisive coordinated military response” to any future Russian invasion, plus reinstatement of all sanctions and revocation of territorial recognition.
Apparently, boots on the ground, sanctions, and refusal to recognize conquests are all suitable responses to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but only the next Russian invasion, not the current one.
At this point, some of you might be experiencing déjà vu, for back in 1994, in accord with the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to surrender the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for recognition of its borders and sovereignty. The other signatories were the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom.
Russia has repeatedly violated the Budapest Memorandum, and both the United States and United Kingdom have condemned and sanctioned Russia and given aid to Ukraine in accordance with the agreement. Until Trump.
The United States should be honoring those security guarantees.
If Trump will not honor security guarantees that have been on the books for more than 30 years, then there is no reason to think that he would honor any new guarantees.
Ukraine never should have bargained away a nuclear deterrent for mere promises. They would be absolute fools to make the same mistake again.
What else does Russia get?
Trump proposes lifting sanctions against Russia, readmitting it to the G8, and reintegrating it into the global economy.
Trump also proposes using up to $100 billion in frozen Russian assets to invest in Ukraine’s reconstruction. Trump also insists that the US will take 50% of the profits, which is the only thing in the whole proposal that reads like Trump.
There will also be a complete amnesty for Russian war crimes.
It will be as if Russia never invaded, except for all the dead Ukrainians.
What does Ukraine get out of this deal? Basically, nothing more than a temporary pause on Russian aggression, which Ukraine will be much less capable of resisting. Trump’s plan makes future Russian aggression inevitable by lavishly rewarding current Russian aggression while offering no serious deterrents to more. This is consummate idiocy.
Naturally, Zelenskyy rejected the proposal, our European allies were justly outraged, and now Trump and his administration are in damage control mode. What did they expect?
The whole fiasco feels like we have entered a time warp and returned to February of this year, when Trump was trying to blackmail Zelenskyy to agree to similar Russian-authored capitulations, along with blatant American profiteering—remember the “minerals deal”?—because Trump wanted to feast on Ukraine’s carcass as well. These proposals were also rejected by Ukraine and our European allies.
After the Alaska summit, it seemed to be slowly dawning on Trump that Putin—the man who started the war and could stop it at any time—might be the main impediment to peace. But now all of that seems to have been forgotten. There’s really no fathoming how Trump’s mind works, but bribery and blackmail cannot be ruled out.
The best way to end the Ukraine war is a negotiated peace in which Russia leaves Ukrainian soil, repatriates all prisoners and kidnapped children, and pays war reparations. Putting Putin’s head on a spike on the Kremlin wall would be nice. But I’m a realist. So we’d have to leave that last bit out.
The next-best way to end the Ukraine War is to maintain sanctions on Russia and enable Ukraine to win the war by destroying the Russian military on the front lines and Russian industry and infrastructure behind the lines. The goal should be the same: to eject Russia from Ukraine, repatriate prisoners and deportees, and receive reparations.
What is the next-best policy after that? To maintain sanctions on Russia and negotiate a cease fire on the present battle lines. In short, simply to pause the war. Trump’s proposal is nothing more than a pause in the war anyway, and it would leave Ukraine much weaker when Russia chooses to invade again.
If the war were paused on the current lines, Ukraine would have time to rebuild. So would Russia, of course, but time is not on Russia’s side. Putin is an autocrat in his 70s. He could die at any time. Furthermore, Trump’s time in office is limited. Moreover, if Russia pauses the war, demobilized Russian soldiers—which include the denizens of prisons and madhouses—pose a far greater threat to Putin’s regime than demobilized Ukrainian soldiers do to Zelenskyy or any of his successors.
One clear motive for this despicable “peace” plan is Trump’s desire to add a Nobel Peace Prize to his shelf of trophies. In short, it is all about Trump’s vanity. Not the good of America. Not the good of the world. Indeed, Trump is putting the United States taxpayer and the US military on the hook for such hare-brained schemes as a giant peace-keeping base in Gaza simply to slake his vanity.
Thus the Nobel committee needs to make a statement: Donald Trump will never receive the Nobel Peace Prize. To allow him to continue shamelessly campaigning for it is a moral hazard, which countless people will pay for in blood long after Trump is dead. If the Nobel committee is serious about peace, that is their best move.
32 comments
I know that the US presidency is a difficult job. I try not to be too critical of anyone in that job. However, Trump is excessively changeable and indecisive. Flexibility is good sometimes, but not always and never to excess. And Trump does it to extreme excess. First he supports Russia. Then he supports Ukraine. Now he supports Russia again. This proposed 28-point “peace plan” is a total surrender to Russia. Eventually, it would result in the entire Ukraine going to Russia, after millions of deaths.
A moderate solution would prevent this result. Start with an armistice and an end to the killing. Then split the difference. Give Russia the Crimea and the Donbass, since they’ve conquered it anyway. But let Ukraine arm itself fully and join NATO. Neither side would accept this moderate solution, however, because then the killing would stop. As Guillaume Faye has pointed out in his essay, On the Essence of War (Sept. 19, 2013), humans love war too much for reason to prevail.
One clear motive for this despicable “peace” plan is Trump’s desire to add a Nobel Peace Prize to his shelf of trophies.
Great article. I am afraid you are right, it probably does boil down to simple vanity. 🙃
Excellent piece. I completely agree.
Whenever Kushner and Witkoff get involved in some scheme, you can be sure it will be idiotic and embarrassing, as well as morally reprehensible.
Yet another stain on the record of the Evil Empire
” Our movement, of course, is rife with people who think that the right of conquest is wholesome and that international law is the purest faggotry. “
Yes, and that’s basically correct.
In reality, there is no such thing as International Law.
What we call “international law” is essentially just customs and treaty agreements. And these, while highly important, do NOT have any kind of transcendant properties other than in Globalist propaganda.
What I see as problematical about the latest Trump Ukraine proposal is that it leaves too much up to future negotiations.
This will work about as well as the German Armistice of November 1918 conditioned on unconditional regime-change, complete demobilization, and the surrendering of massive tracts of still-occupied enemy territory for a future Dictate at Versailles leaving unspecified Reparations justified on a universal admission by the new Republican government of unilateral German War Guilt that even the Communists reviled.
The best way to ultimately wage peace is for the belligerents to mutually agree to end the conflict.
But to say that renouncing the waging of war for territorial acquisitions, or for any other national goals, is indeed supreme faggotry. It is rather like Kellogg-Briand agreeing to meet in Paris to piously declare that cats are now Vegans.
I really can’t see Trump’s deal working for long short of either Ukrainian admission to NATO or the USA handing them a substantial number of Tomahawk missiles and quite a few versatile tactical nukes.
Maybe like the death of Stalin for the newly-sworn U.S. President during the Korean War, we can all luck out with the death of Putin, but that is not much to count on.
As far as the Nobel Peace Prize, it was garbage long before Ralph Bunche (1950), Doctah King (1964), and Barack Hussein Obama received one (2009), the latter just for being the first Mulatto elected U.S. President.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the kiss of death. Who wants to be lumped in with the likes of Elie Wiesel (1986), Bishop Tutu (1984), Nelson Mandela (1993), anyway?
Donald Trump ain’t no Jimmy Carter (2002) let alone Teddy Roosevelt (1906).
In 1935, the German peacenik Carl von Ossietzky was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize purely as an FU to Herr Hitler.
Ossietzsky was a “journalist” who revealed that the German Reichswehr had been secretly training pilots in the Soviet Union in defiance of the Versailles Treaty (which banned a German air force).
Years before the NSDAP came to power, Ossietzsky was convicted of compromising German military secrets like a common spy, and he was duly sentenced to prison by a criminal court in Weimar Germany.
Some other “breaches” of the Versailles Treaty, if you want to call it that, were that the Reichswehr chief Colonel-General Hans von Seeckt effectively maintained the banned German General Staff with his Truppenamt (troop office) and by increasing the number of reservists with comprehensive military training to partially make up for the absurd limit of the professional Reichswehr to 100 thousand men.
Because the League of Nations was predicated from its start upon German suzerainty to the victorious Allied powers ─ i.e., Germany was not considered a truly sovereign state before the world bar of equals ─ it was incumbent for the Third Reich to withdraw from it.
Hitler’s principle number one was to end the Versailles Dictate and its encyclopedic War Guilt and Reparations swindle ─ and that is what brought the NSDAP to power when Center-Right bourgeois clowns failed, and the Great Depression proved that undefined moral obligations and open-ended debt would never be adequately refinanced.
🙂
There is such thing as international law. It consists of customs and treaty agreements. There is no overarching state to enforce it, which is probably why you declare it unreal. Its rationale is that it is a system of rules that, if followed, benefits all parties and makes the world a better place. All states, even large ones, benefit from outlawing conquest. The large ones most of all, because they have the most to lose. Putin lives in the past.
Did you read my post? I did say that there were customs and treaty agreements and that they were important. I did not say they were “unreal.”
I said that these relationships were not transcendant (contrary to Globalist propaganda).
What is unreal is that this is supreme LAW. That is because there is no ultimate sovereignty to enforce it short of war.
Bodies of bourgeois bureacrats pontificating to reporters at international tribunals after famous victories are not “the Law.”
And agreements are usually bargained with unequal sets of advantages and leverages, so not everybody gets all of what they want ─ which is what the victors counted on at Versailles when the losers had already decidedly pawned off all of their bargaining leverage for “republicanism” and abstract Peace.
Another problem is trying to boil national goals and the aspirations of peoples and their leaders to simple Aggression ─ as if that can be done merely by winning a war or by declaring it thus. Peace is no less as complicated as War.
So, yes, I reject the idea that you can outlaw war. Maybe in science fiction ─ like if there were some kind of Forbin Project AI that will duly punish or potentially even destroy the Earth if you even think of disobedience or speaking out about race-mixing.
There is a lot more to the Russia-Ukraine conflict than a simple atavistic land grab ─ just as 1914 and 1939 were far more complicated than Globalist propaganda suggests. I am not in the Putin camp here.
I also agree that the Ukrainians were foolish to pawn off their nuclear arsenal, and that under no circumstances can they renounce a future possibility of joining NATO. I don’t see much else as a credible deterrent to the Badenovs.
In the new flawed but entertaining Nuremberg movie, the IMT inquisitors were accusing Germany of conquering the Sudetenland, German ancestral parts of Poland, and the ethnic-German part of Austria (an Anschluß that was literally prohibited by the Versailles Treaty).
Russell Crowe’s accented Göring response was that this was “what you call the self-determination of Peoples.”
🙂
Niccolo Machiavelli told us that foreign allies are fickle and those who rely on them are often ruined. Niccolo Machiavelli keeps being right.
The Great Replacement Putin has caused in the captured areas of Ukraine is sickening, and any “based” zigger should see the clips of modern day Mariupol, with all the swarthy faces and niqabs. “Saving the white race”, what a complete an utter joke that’s turned out to be. I remember that cope some fifteen years ago from the BNP. It’s probably due to learned helplessness that so many on the right turned to Russia for salvation. But it’s just completely wrong, interacting with Russians, they really believe in their colorblind civic nationalism, and will be in for a sharp and harsh awakening when the demographics tilt a little further. The central asian and caucaus Muslims there are coddled and privileged exactly the same way Muslims are in France, for the exact same reasons. And I’ve heard rumors and speculations that the periphery minorities are actually flouting conscription, and it’s the white Russians getting hauled off to die instead. If Somalian muslims conspire to defraud Minnesota, and Muslims in western europe run grooming gangs, then I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised if central asian muslims are conspiring to do that.
There’s a very big chance Russia won’t even exist in twenty years time as a nation state. Russia has only been held together as an extended empire through the sheer demographic and industrial might of its core white slavic territories. And even with that power and advantage, we’ve seen during the Russian Revolution what the periphery minorities can do once that autocratic control loosens, the terror that gets unleashed. The autocratic centralization that defines their history is a result of their geography and empire, and every time they’ve liberalized, they’ve fragmented apart. Add in millions more Sub-continentals, African foreign workers, central Asians to the core areas of Russia itself, in Moscow itself, and then what happens? I simply don’t think the system can hold without a white majority. Non-white majority western countries could probably somewhat chug along in a racially degenerated manner like Latin America, but Russia would almost certainly implode into several new nations, with loose nukes everywhere. Then there’s China and North Korea in the far east, who would easily like to slice off parts of Siberia if the situation in Russia destabilizes sufficiently.
It’s for that reason, I think it’s still worth it to give Putin all that Trump’s offering -only- to stop the slaughter of both the Russian and Ukranian people. By the time they’ve recovered from this war and will be angling for more territory, Russia will be immobilized geopolitically due to demographic decline and problems from their great replacement. And the threat of Russian return slows the potential of western countries filling up Ukriane with replacement migrants. A Pakistani or Egyptian might think twice about settling in Ukraine if he’s concerned Russia will invade again and he’ll be pressganged into dying. Because lets face it, the second it’s safe Zelensky will flood that country with replacement migrants. But I know Trump isn’t thinking in terms of saving whites, so what the possible reason is for this pathetic capitualtion from his perspective, I really don’t know.
Putin and Lukashenko work out to be worse than western elites because at least western elites arguably believe in some higher egalitarian ideal, as perverse and as wrong as it is. Putin, as someone who portrays himself as a nationalist, should know better than to be churning up his own people and the Ukrainians in a meat grinder. And Lukashenko, well, there’s a reason they call him “the roach”. They know at least the replacement migrants will be thankful and obsequious for the first decade, and for these elder psychopaths, scared of death, that’s enough for them.
Apropos of the nuclear deterrent:
I agree. Well-guarded and maintained nuclear warheads equipped with effective delivery systems are absolutely essential for a nation to guard its sovereignty against a conventionally superior rival.
Pakistan and North Korea are two instances in this regard.
We (Pakistan) lack geographical depth. Major urban centers and critical infrastructure are near the frontier. They are vulnerable in the event of an enemy incursion.
Therefore, we not only have tactical nuclear weapons to obliterate enemy divisions aiming to breach our frontiers but also long-range ballistic missiles to devastate enemy’s (India) hinterland.
Note: The article was somehow accessible for a short while before it went behind the paywall.
Steve Witkoff has done one thing – every Russian soldier knows that peace talks are ongoing. They will be less inclined to attack. Who wants to be the last man killed? This will create a leadership challenge for the Russian officers.
I suppose this works for Ukrainians too, so wouldn’t it be a wash in terms of the war’s outcome?
I neglected to fill in all the numbers that are going into the battle calculus in my earlier post.
The impact of the peace negotiations is not a wash, and news of the talks will make things harder for the Russians.
1. The Ukrainians are defending their homes.
2. Russian victory means widespread theft, rape gangs, and corrupt occupation officials plus the Yoke of the Dutchy of Moscow inflicted upon the people of Ukraine. That’s a real reason to continue to fight.
3. The Russian soldiers on the field are fighting so Tungusic tribesmen (or whatever group) settled in the ruins of Ukraine’s cities can drunkenly shamble to the relief office to get their stipend checks. That’s not much of a reason to risk it all.
The Russians are bringing their supplies to the front by horse and mule. Their army is no longer motorized. There won’t be a big blitzkrieg breakthrough on Russia’s part. Additionally, China’s military aid to Russia is not Lend Lease. Ukraine is getting plenty of support from Europe and elsewhere. The only question is can Ukraine’s manpower situation holdout for long enough.
Things in Russia cannot be going well. What was the cause of the earlier Wagner Group Mutiny? Of course, Russia is in a different civilization so it’s a hard read.
These stereotypes are reminiscent of mainstream propaganda. It’s much more complex, which is why many people don’t understand the specifics of this conflict…
Russia is an Asian, better said, a Near Eastern civilisation, so the casulaties do not matter anything for its peoples. And the life in provinces there was purportedly made so bad for common people, that the life is not worth to live, but fighting and dying one can get good money. It is very difficult to defeat a people, which is not afraid of death, because the life is bad.
Although I still believe that open negotiation before the invasion would have worked with Putin when their was still a fear of an unpredictable result of his actions. An offer not to include Ukraine in NATO and introducing a western military presence in Ukraine may have worked to lay to rest any Russian fears of encroachment. As a consequential result, if Putin’s greed and determination persisted, as it has to the present outcome then we have to deal with a war which must be won. We have not used all our and NATO’s conventional options and if we did, eastern Ukraine could become incredibly costly to Russia and any allies deployed there without invading her territory. Blackwater contractors presently shooting fish in a barrel in Gaza and ICE might better earn their mercenary pay under a Ukrainian command (with an executive order).
Trump’s latest “Mamdani betrayal” is also crazy, which even makes Fuentes look normal…
What I find lacking in this discussion is any reflection on the harmful nature of the Ukrainian regime and its links to the most anti-white political forces in Europe. In fact, the European liberal oligarchy would now prefer to establish an absolutist police regime that would suppress any signs of dissent (“populism”, “racism”). And they are no longer hiding the fact that it would be best to turn the Ukrainian army into the armed wing of Brussels, which will maintain the status quo across Europe, “because otherwise Putin.”
Ukrainians can deal with their government when they secure their sovereignty from Putin.
Guest has it. The regime in Kiev was imposed by the globalist forces and it fights to impose European liberalism upon the country. It could be noted it has the support of play-actors who imagine they are some sort of fascist, and who are indulged by the regime as long as they die. Maybe the Ukraine army generally might take up the old adage that the main enemy is at home? Perhaps it follows that those of us not in Ukraine could take up the same position?
This is a wholly false Russian propaganda narrative that Western Rightists have stubbornly held onto like a slobbery chew toy.
To Greg:
My issue has always been a fulsome suspicion of the so-called Ukrainian ‘Right’ I have been aware of them in Australia. I have met, albeit long ago, the local Banderaites and heard their ‘politics’. The classic example was this bloke (Stefan Romaniw), given a state funeral last year: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/statement-premier-128 A Federal minister also came and flags were flown at half-mast in Victoria.
Romaniu was heavily involved in the OUN. He had no ‘love’ of his adopted country, espoused multiculti at every turn and favoured refugee immigration. He was tolerated by Zionism even though he put his name on a work which would be otherwise dubbed anti semitic.
My experience of these Ukrainians told me they were linked to the mainstream parties and rejected any Australian nationalism.
When I look at the ‘Right’ in their homeland, I see the same.
We must respectfully agree to disagree.
I dont’t know how can you possibly can say that with a straight face when Australia’s own Thomas Sewell wholeheartedly supports Ukrainian nationalist movement.
To AK: I wrote about people involved heavily in the so-called ‘Anti Bolshevik Bloc of Nations and the World Anti Communist League in the period 1950 – 1980. Romaniu was well acquainted with these forces and their descendants. These people had no commitment to Australia’s original immigration policy. Romaniu continued their line in Australia. The East European anti communists in general were linked to the Taiwanese government which also pushed against our national policy. With respect too, I don’t think Tommy Sewell has anything to do with the issue?
I don’t understand this obsession with Ukraine.
You are literally losing the United States, Canada, the UK, and France every single passing year and you are obsessed with this dispute between Ukraine and Russia?
Not worth the effort. Concentrate on what you can have an effect on.
I guarantee you…not a single Ukrainian cares about an American blogger named Greg Johnson.
Actually, I know quite a few Ukrainians.
The struggle for white self-determination is world-wide, as should be white solidarity. Western nationalists have a lot to learn from Ukraine.
I hope that learning doesn’t include the tendency to run away with $100,000,000.
https://www.trtworld.com/article/17f5f44e02af
“Ukrainian investigators have accused a key ally of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of orchestrating a $100 million corruption scheme, as a major standoff over graft in the war-torn country escalates.
The accusations against Timur Mindich* are the latest episode in a sweeping corruption scandal involving claims of massive embezzlement from the energy sector, even as the country’s infrastructure is battered by Russian attacks.
Mindich co-owns the media production company Kvartal 95, founded by Zelenskyy, who was a star comedian before running for office.” (this is a short extract)
*Son of entrepreneurs Mikhail and Stella Mindich. He has an older sister named Liubov. His father passed away in 2006 in Israel. Mindich is married to Kateryna Verber, a fashion businesswoman, and they were married in Israel in 2010.
I’m here because WestsDarkestHour has mentioned you. The issue is really muddled as there’s a huge two-tiered propaganda campaign – first, for the woke libtards, and second, for the based trad bros. Both tiers are rubbish. Case in point – in the Tucker interview, Putin literally confessed to taking orders from the CIA and telling Yanukovich not to use force. This means Putin is as pro-Western globalist as Trump or Macron.
Another point would be the Dnieper bridges – they can be easily destroyed, yet Russia keeps them preserved – otherwise, the Ukraine would lose, but that is forbidden.
This means both “sides” are fake, there are only Jews and Jew-obeyers.
On the actual article – the right of conquest has been recognised just fine for a few cases – Yemen, Germany, Morocco and Israel.
Also, giving Russia the pitiful land bridge to Crimea is in no way a Russian victory. The Ukraine will get rearmed and restart the war in 2027. That both sides are calling it Ukrainian defeat is a sure mark of yet another propaganda narrative aimed to demilitarising Russia by making it seem as if Russia were winning.
So, shadowy figures behind the scenes are making Russia fight to lose the war, while groundwork is being laid for a Ukrainian attack on Russia, and the purpose of the whole thing is to demilitarize Russia.
You sound like a complete nutcase.
Greg, I love Counter Currents, but your pro-oligarch, pro-wackjob Ukie nationalist is pure crackpottery. Merry Christmas to you. 😆
No, I’m completely right, and you will come ’round to my way of thinking in the end. Merry Christmas to you too!
Greg, you are completely right and it makes a refreshing change to hear that a conservative nationalist is not just a gullible imbiber of moscovite propaganda.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.