November 21, 2025 • 27 mins
In this episode of Daily Story Brief, we unpack the most controversial “peace plan” yet to emerge from the war in Ukraine—a secretive 28-point framework drafted not in official ministries, but in private jets and back-channel meetings between two unconventional power brokers.The hosts walk you through the origins of the proposal, tracing how U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer and personal ally of the White House, teamed up with Russian economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin-linked head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, to build a plan that bypassed traditional diplomatic channels and largely excluded both Europe and Ukraine from the initial drafting process.From there, the episode dives into the core substance of the framework: massive territorial concessions by Ukraine, permanent loss of Crimea and the entire Donbas, a frozen front line in Kherson and Zaporizhia, and even a demilitarized buffer zone that becomes Russian territory on the map. Ukraine would accept strict caps on its armed forces, surrender long-range weapons, and enshrine permanent NATO non-membership in its own constitution, while NATO itself would formally close its doors to Ukraine.In exchange, Ukraine is offered “NATO-like” security guarantees that sound strong on paper but are carefully written to remain ambiguous in practice. The hosts break down what those guarantees actually mean, how far they really go, and the fine print that voids them if Ukraine ever tries to retake its lost territories by force. They explore the central paradox: a shield that protects a smaller Ukraine, but also chains it to a new map it can never legally challenge.The episode then turns to the money. You’ll hear how hundreds of billions in frozen Russian assets become the engine of a huge reconstruction package—structured in ways that would deliver significant profits to U.S.-led ventures—and how the plan offers Moscow a staged return from isolation: sanctions relief, a path back to the G8, and a sweeping U.S.–Russia economic partnership spanning energy, AI, data centers, and Arctic resources.Alongside the legal and financial architecture, the hosts dissect the most explosive clause of all: a universal amnesty for “all parties involved in the conflict.” They examine how this could shield alleged war criminals and corrupt officials on both sides, shut down ongoing investigations into atrocities like Bucha, and force Ukrainians to trade justice and accountability for a ceasefire.Throughout, you’ll hear reactions from Kyiv, European capitals, and Moscow—from Zelensky’s careful public tightrope walk to furious condemnation inside Ukraine, to European leaders warning of “capitulation,” to Kremlin-aligned commentators openly speculating about financial blackmail, coups, and even “heroic death” if Kyiv refuses to sign.Finally, the hosts zoom out to the biggest question of all: does this 28-point blueprint represent a realistic path to ending the killing, or is it an updated version of Munich 1938—rewarding aggression, locking in imperial gains, and all but guaranteeing that today’s “peace” becomes tomorrow’s even larger war?If you want to understand how one back-channel document could redraw the map of Europe, reshape Western unity, and test the limits of justice in the name of peace, this is an episode you don’t want to miss.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Daily Story Brief. Today, we are digging
into a proposal that is just, i mean, completely reshaped
the conversation around the war in Ukraine. We're talking about
the new, very detailed twenty eight point framework from the
US administration that's aimed at achieving peace.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
And this isn't just another diplomatic effort, you know, this
is a really high stakes, comprehensive framework. It's emerged from
some very quiet back channel negotiations and it's terms. They
require these painful, almost existential concessions from Ukraine while also
offering these unprecedented security guarantees. But those guarantees are well,
(00:37):
they're deeply conditional, and for you the listener, understanding the
balance and the backlash and these twenty eight points is
absolutely key to grasping where this conflict goes next.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Absolutely, we have the full text and we're going to
spend our time today unpacking the specific clauses, everything from
you know, massive territorial changes in military caps to what
those NATO like security guarantees actually mean in practice.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That distinction is so critical exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Then we'll get into the firestorm of reactions from Key,
from Moscow, and from European capitals. This proposal, I think,
whether it succeeds or fails, is forcing everyone to face
some very very difficult realities.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
And before we even get into the text, we have
to understand the backdrop. Who wrote this, how did this
process even come about? And why did they bypass all
the traditional diplomatic channels, Because the way it was made
is exactly why it's so controversial.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
So let's start right there with the origin story, because
it really does sound like something out of a political thriller.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
This draft plan was quietly developed over the last month,
not through the State Department or anything like that, but
by two well, two extremely colorful and unconventional figures.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
That's the foundational controversy, the unofficial nature of it. You've
got us special Voice de Witcoff and Russian Economic Envoy
Kirol Demetriev. And by using personal voys, you're signaling that
you prioritize a deal, a personal deal, over institutional stability,
and that creates immediate tension, especially with European allies. And
when you look at the drafters themselves, that personal approach
(02:08):
becomes even clearer. Tell us a bit about Steve Wikoff.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Wikoff is a fascinating figure in this He's a sixty
eight year old New York real estate developer, and crucially
he's a loyal personal friend of the current US administration head. Ok,
he's working without pay, using his own private jet for
official business. He is not a career diplomat. He is
a political intermediary.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
His team would point to his experience with the Israel
hamas ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Though right they would, But you have to remember that
ceasefire was largely prepared by the outgoing administration before he
even stepped in, I see, and so his involvement here
draws immediate scrutiny. According to reports, his team lacks deep
Russia expertise, and during critical talks with President Putin he
apparently dispensed with a stenographer and relied entirely on Kremlin translators.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Wow, no independent record.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
None, And that lack of oversight is a huge concern
in these kinds of high stakes talks, and some sources
close to Kiev have even accused him of sort of
sighting with Russian interests.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
That really sets the stage. And then on the Russian
side we have Kurl Dmitriev.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yes, Dmitriev is the head of the Russian Direct Investment
Fund the RDIF. He was actually born in Kiev about
fifty years ago, but now he makes a point of
emphasizing he hails in his words, not from Ukraine but
from the USSR, so a.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Very specific identity he's crafting.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
There, very specific. He has a top tier Western education
Stanford Harvard, worked at McKenzie. He's really the face of
Russian economic integration with the West, and his reputation in
the Kremlin wildly ambitious. He has a talent for cultivating,
let's say, the right friends. He's thought to be very
close to Putin's family. Icy during the pandemic, he was
(03:51):
the guy promoting the sputnik V vaccine. But his key
role here is economic cooperation. He thinks in terms of
massive capital projects, shared resources. He even proposed a tunnel
under the bearing straight ones.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
So this is less like traditional state craft and more
like a boardroom takeover of a major conflict.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's a perfect way to put it, you know. Talks
stalled back in October after the US canceled a meeting
with Putin and imposed some sanctions. It was Dimitriev who
flew to the US met with Witkoff in Miami for
three days and hammered out this draft plan. He's playing
the economic fixer.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
And this brings us to the core controversy over the
plans exclusivity. It was all done in secret, right, largely
without any direct European or even initial Ukrainian involvement exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Some European diplomats said they only learned the details from
the news.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
The reaction was shock and frustration. You know, they are
the primary backers of Ukraine financially and militarily, yet they
were cut out of drafting the future security architecture of
their own continent.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And the White House Defense Press.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Secretary Caroline Leavitt insisted the team was engaged with both
sides Russia and Ukraine equally and that they were seeking
terms for a durable, lasting piece.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
But that claim of equal engagement is directly challenged by Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
It is Solsas, close to the Ukrainian government, confirmed they
were excluded from the drafting process itself. They were only
informed of the broad strokes later on, and.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
The timing felt suspicious to them.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Very It coincided with a major domestic coruption crisis in Kiv,
which we'll get into It raised immediate suspicion that the
US was trying to force a bad deal on a
weakened ally.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So the stage is set an unofficial channel, unconventional negotiators
trying to unilaterally impose a structure on this massive conflict.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Okay, let's unpack the hard numbers and the demands, because
this is this section of the plan that immediately got
labeled capitulation by critics.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
That's right, The core of it requires Ukraine to make
these huge, long resisted concessions, territory, military size, and its
NATO status.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Let's start with the territory point twenty one. This is
probably the hardest pill for Kiv to swallow.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
It is it essentially ratifies Russia's biggest games, both historical
like Crimea and the more recent ones from the current invasion.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
So walk us through the specifics. What regions would Ukraine
have to permanently give up? The plan identifies three regions
that would be permanently relinquished and crucially recognize defacto so
internationally recognized including by the US as Russian territory, which
are Crimea along with the la Hansk and donetskoblasts.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
The whole don Boss region.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
The entire don Bas region. And this is significant because
even now, after years of brutal fighting, Russia only controls
about eighty eight percent of it.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
So Ukraine would be handing over the remaining twelve percent
that they've been fiercely defending.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Exactly Lamb they still control, just to get this piece.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
But what about the other two regions Russia claim to
annex Keersen and Zapparizia.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
For those two, the plan uses a frozen line concept.
The border would just be frozen along the current line
of contacts, so that line becomes the de facto border. Okay,
but the demands for the don Bosco even for they
require a buffer zone.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
A buffer zone tell us about that? That sounds strategically critical.
It is.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
It's a major sticking point. Zero point twenty one mandates
a specific withdrawal. Ukrainian forces must pull back from parts
of Donetsk Oblast they currently control. This area they withdraw
from then becomes a neutral, demilitarized buffer zone. But here's
the real kicker.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
What's up?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Even this buffer zone would be internationally recognized as territory
of the Russian Federation.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Wait, so Ukrainian troops pull out, it's demilitarized, but it's
legally Russia's land.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Legally it's ceded to Russia. Russian troops would be barred
from entering it, but on a map, it's Russian.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
So Russia gets all of Crimea, all of don Bas,
including territory they haven't won militarily, and a frozen line elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It fundamentally rewrites the map, and critics immediately said, this
is capitulation you're giving putin territorial victories he failed to
secure on the battlefield.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Is there anything Russia gives up?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
The plan says, Russia agrees to relinquish other agreed territories
it controls outside those five regions, but the main prize,
the industrial heartland of don Bossm Crimea, that all stays
with Russia.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Okay, Beyond territory, the plan puts severe restrictions on Ukraine's
military Moscow's been demanding this for years.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yes, and these limits are designed to well to effectively
neuter Ukraine as a significant long term military power.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
How so, what are the specifics?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
First, a force cap The size of Ukraine's armed forces
would be limited to six hundred thousand personnel.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
And that's a big cut, a huge cut.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
A reduction of hundreds of thousands of active troops according
to reports. And they'd also be forbidden from having certain
long range weapons.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So a smaller army, fewer advanced weapons that really degrade
their ability to defend themselves. What about NATO?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
This is the big one point seven. It's a dual requirement. First,
Ukraine must write into its own constitution that it will
never join NATO, a constitutional change, a constitutional change, but
it goes further. NATO itself must include a corresponding statute
that prohibits Ukraine's future admission.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
So it's a lock on both sides, a legally binding
commitment from Ukraine and from the Alliance.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Exactly, it slams the doorshut permanently.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
What about foreign troops? Could they have say un peacekeepers.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Nope, explicitly barred Points eight and nine clarify that no
NATO troops and no foreign forces at all, including peacekeepers.
The country has to remain strategically neutralized.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
But I thought I saw something in point nine about
fighter jets.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yes, in what feels like a token gesture, it says
European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
In Poland, not in Ukraine correct.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
The idea is that air cover would have to come
from outside its borders, while the country itself remains militarily
reduced and constitutionally neutral.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
This is a complete reversal of Ukraine's strategic goals since
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
It is, and this brings us to the central paradox
of the whole plan. Ukraine is asked to trade its
number one security goal, NATO's Article five Collective Defense, for
a different kind of promise, a very specific but also
highly conditional security promise.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
So let's get into that. The plan promises reliable security
guarantees zero point five. That sounds good on paper, but
what does NATO like really mean here?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Well, a senior US official confirmed the guarantee is modeled
on Article five principles. This means the US and its
European allies would view an attack on Ukraine as an
attack on the Transatlantic community. That's very potent diplomatic language.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Okay, so they'd view it that way, But what would
they do? What's the response if.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Russia invades this new, smaller Ukraine Again, the response would
include three concrete actions. First, a decisive, coordinated military response. Second,
the immediate reinstatement of all global sanctions, and third, Russia
loses recognition for the new territories it gained. All the
benefits of the deal are gone.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
A decisive, coordinated military response. That's the part that sounds
NATO like. But let's be really clear here, does that
commit US troops to the battlefield?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And that is the crucial ambiguity That is the difference
between NATO like and NATO right. The source material is
very deliberate in its wording. It says they would view
the attack as an attack on the community, and the
response would be a coordinated military response. It does not
explicitly say who executes it or what kind of forces
are deployed.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So hypothetically, if the US sends drones and intelligence support
but no boots on.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The ground, does that count. It feels like a lot
of wiggle room.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
That's the entire point. It's deterrence theater. Article five is
a legally binding guarantee that triggers immediate mandatory action. This
plan promises mandatory consultation and action, but the intensity and
nature of that action are well, they're negotiable. They're subject
to the political will of future leaders.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Which makes it fundamentally less reliable than actual NATO.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Membership exactly, and that's why Kiev is so deeply skeptical.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And these guarantees, they also come with some very strict
conditions for Ukraine itself.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Absolutely, the plan specifies how Ukraine can live use these guarantees.
If Ukraine invades Russia, they're gone. And this is a
very specific one. If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow
or Saint Petersburg without cause, the guarantee is void without cause.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
That's an interesting qualifier.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
It is also the US receives compensation for providing the guarantee,
which sort of turns it into a paid service. It
commercializes the whole arrangement. But there's one point here, zero
point twenty two, that seems to lock in the territorial
concessions permanently.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
This is the critical limitation. It's the point that turns
this from a defense packed into a permanent territorial settlement.
It says the security guarantees do not apply if either
Russia or Ukraine tries to alter the agreed upon borders
by force.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
So if Ukraine ever tried to militarily retake Crimea or
the Dambas, the guarantee is gone. They're on their own.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
They forfeit the only protection they received in the deal.
They would be trading their sovereign right to restore their
nineteen ninety one borders in exchange for this NATO like.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
So the guarantee is a shield against a future invasion
of the new Ukraine, but it's also a chain preventing
Ukraine from ever undoing the deal.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
That's the fundamental paradox, protection and exchange for self limitation,
and that's why many Ukrainian officials see the security part
as just woefully insufficient.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Okay, So beyond the tail field, this deal offers a
massive financial care, especially for reconstruction, and a path for
Russia to get out of isolation. Let's look at the
financial architecture.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
The plan promises a powerful global package for rebuilding Ukraine, modernization, infrastructure,
resource extraction. This is the sweet nerve for Kiev, and
the immediate focus is on mobilizing those hundreds of billions
in frozen Russian assets.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
How exactly would those funds be used? According to point fourteen,
and you know who benefits.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
It's a complex, multi layered mechanism and it's already raised
some eyebrows in Europe. First one hundred billion dollars in
frazen Russian assets would be invested in US led efforts
for Ukraine's reconstruction. Of the profits generated from this venture,
the action returns on the investment. The US would receive
a full fifty percent wait.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Hold on one hundred billion in Russian assets goes into
a US LED fund, and the US gets fifty percent
of the profits from rebuilding Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
That's what the plan says.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
That sounds less like pure aid and more like a
major financial incentive for the US to broker this deal.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
It definitely adds a commercial layer to the diplomacy. It
frames the US role not just as a security guarantor,
but as a primary financial beneficiary of the peace framework
well way Europe. Europe is supposed to add another one
hundred billion dollars for reconstruction, but the main mechanism for
using the frozen Russian assets is structured to reward US
corporate involvement.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
So that's the cart for Ukraine. What about Russia? What's
their path back to global standing?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
The plan offers Russia a clear route back. Sanctions would
be lifted in stages, case by case, tied to compliance,
and critically, Russia would be invited to rejoin the G eight,
restoring the status at lost after annex and Crimea in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
And there's also a long term economic cooperation deal mandated
between the US and Russia.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yes, a massive one. It covers energy, natural resources, AI
data centers, and even Arctic rare earth metal extraction. It's
a full revival of bilateral economic ties.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
So let's talk about the political and legal restructuring. How
does the plan ensure Russia holds up its end and
what demands are placed on Kiev.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
For Russia, point sixteen requires it to write a policy
of non aggression towards Europe and Ukraine into its own laws,
and it mandates a new dialogue between Russia and NATO
mediated by the US.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
And for Ukraine, the political process kicks off immediately.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yes, Ukraine must hold elections in one hundred days.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
One hundred days. That's an incredibly short timeline, especially during
a period of national crisis. In concession.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It introduces huge domestic political volatility.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And then we get to one of the most controversial points,
point twenty six the amnesty class.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
This one has explosive implications. It says all parties involved
in the conflict would receive full amnesty for actions during
the war and agree not to pursue future claims.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
All parties inv does that include political figures and people
implicated in war crimes, or even the recent corruption scandals
in Kiev.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
That ambiguity, many critics argue, is intentional. It's a sweeping
measure to wipe the slate completely clean. It effectively eliminates
international legal pressure, especially on investigations into alleged war crimes
by Russian forces in places like Bucha. It's a massive
concession for Russia.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
But the moral cost for Kiev to agree to amnesty
for those responsible for the most brutal acts of the
war it's immense, it is, and.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
As you mentioned, it could also potentially shield figures involved
in wartime corruption if they're deemed involved in the conflict.
It's a convenient legal shield for both sides.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
And finally, who oversees all of this.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
The agreement would be legally binding, monitored and guaranteed by
a peace council led by the US administration head Donald J.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Trump.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
He would effectively control the consequences of any future violations
and an immediate cease fire takes effect once all parties agree.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So the timing of this proposal could not have been worse.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
For Kiev, not at all. It arrived as President Zelenski
was already facing intense pressure militarily and politically. It made
his response an incredibly difficult tightrope walk.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
His official public response was so careful, wasn't it? Very diplomatic?
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Extremely calculator. He confirmed he got the plan and said
he intends to speak with President Trump about diplomatic opportunities.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
He used phrases like constructive, honest, and swift work, but
then he added that the proposals must be genuine and
deliver a dignified.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Piece, and that phrase dignified piece is diplomatic code for
this cannot be a capitulation.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
He also seemed to be making a public plea, saying
Ukraine needs a real peace, one that will not be
broken by a third invasion, and that the US has
the power to ensure that Russia's willingness to end the
war finally become serious.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
That is precisely the tight rope. He's basically saying, use
your leverage to get a better deal from Putin. Don't
force these terms on us.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Because he can't just reject it outright.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
He can't the US cutoff financial aid. He can't risk
alienating the broker of this deal. It would be catastrophic.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
But internally in Kiev the reaction was not so diplomatic,
not at all.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It was fierce and immediate officials called it unrealistic, absurd
and dangerous. Alexander Moreshko, who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee,
called it absolutely senseless and warned it could be a
Russian provocation just to by time.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
And one lawmaker, Yaroslav Yurkishin, he drew a very dark
historical parallel.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yes, he compared it to the nineteen thirty eight Munich Agreement,
where Czechoslovakia was forced to trade territory for what turned
out to be illusory security guarantees.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
That comparison shows the deep fear that this is just
a pause before the next war.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
It does, and you have to remember the domestic context.
This plan landed right in the middle of a massive
corruption scandal in Kiev.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Tell us about that the.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Investigation is looking into the alleged theft of one hundred
million dollars and it implicated his former business partner. It
forced him to dismiss two cabinet ministers. It has seriously
shaken his government.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
And this internal weakness creates a political vulnerability.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
A vulnerability that Western diplomats suggest the timing was designed
to exploit. One diplomat, said Kirol Dmitriev spun this plan
at a time when Zelensky is weak, hoping a vulnerable
leader could be forced to accept it.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
So it's a pressure tactic.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Absolutely. Ukraine is facing nightly bombardment of its energy sector.
Russian forces are making gains in the East, they have
manpower shortages. It is an excruciating time to be presented
with what many their view as surrender terms.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
So it sounds like the plan is winning very few
friends among Ukraine's allies. What are the key objections coming
from Europe?
Speaker 2 (19:45):
The reaction from European capitals was one of immediate and
deep unease. The EU officially said it was troubled by
the plan. One official just called it capitulation.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
In their main argument against it.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
They rejected its moral premise. The EU Foreign policy chief
Kajakullis stressed that in this war there is one aggressor
and one victim.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
She pointed out that Russia has made no visible concessions,
they're just formalizing gains they took by force. Her point
was that rewarding aggression only encourages more.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Aggression, and other major European powers echoed that they did.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
French and Spanish officials were adamant that peace cannot be
a capitulation and must guarantee a sovereign, democratic Ukrainian state,
and the British government emphasized that only the Ukrainian people
can determine their future.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So Europe sees it as a Russian blueprint dressed up
as a peace plan. How did Moscow respond publicly to
a plan they helped write.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Officially, the Kremlin played it very cool, very ambivalent. Spokesperson
Dmitri Peskov initially said Moscow had nothing new to add.
They later even denied that any negotiations were underway, claiming
they were just waiting for Ukraine's official response, which gives.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Them plausible deniability if it fails.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Exactly, but the Russian can envoy Dmitriyev, the co author,
he was quietly confident. He said, we feel the Russian
position is really being.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Heard, really being heard. That says a lot.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
It confirms that Russia believes the framework meets their maximalist demands,
especially on territory and military neutralization.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
And we also saw some pretty shocking speculation from Kremlin
aligned commentators about what happens if Zelensky says no.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
This is where you see the dark side of the
pressure campaign. One commentator, a former US Army officer named
Stanislov Krpivnik. He openly speculated about drastic consequences, what financial blackmail.
For one, a massive smear campaign portrays Zelensky as a warmonger,
rejecting piece. And then he mentioned a forceful scenario. A
forceful scenario an internal coup led by the military or
(21:47):
even and he called this the most radical option, a
heroic death.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
My goodness, that's not diplomacy, that's outright intimidation.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
It is. It's designed to make it clear that rejection
carries a very high, very very personal risk.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
So to really understand the intensity of the resistance here,
we have to look beyond the pragmatic demands and address
what critics see as the plan's fundamental.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Flaw right, and that flaw is the failure to recognize
President Putin's true imperial ambitions. The argument is that this
US plan is based on a fatal misunderstanding of Putin's motivation.
It views him through a Western lens of cost benefit analysis, the.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Idea that he can be bargained with through economic concentives
or land swaps.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Precisely, Critics, including those that the Atlantic Council, say it's
delusional to think that he can be satisfied by promises
of minor territorial concessions. They believe he's not driven by
simple military costs or GDP. He's driven by a perceived
existential struggle to revive Russia's great power status and secure
his own place in history.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
So if his goals are historical and geopolitical, not transactional,
then offering him an economic off ramp is just missing
the point.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
It's worse than missing the point. The source material highlights
that the US administration's approach comparing this to a property
dispute overlooks the fact that Putin is fighting for Ukraine itself,
not just pieces of land. His stated goal is to
extinguish Ukrainian independence, and he's.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Been quite public about this, comparing himself to Peter the Great.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
He has he talks about returning historically Russian lands. He's
basically said all Ukraine is ours. For someone with that mindset,
a joint venture for Arctic rare earth metals is not
going to satisfy them.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
So from that perspective, offering concessions is actually counterproductive.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
It is it just convinces Putin that his opponents are weak,
that they lack the political will and historical stamina to
stand up to him. It confirms his belief that if
he just pushes hard enough, the West will eventually back down.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
So the core critique is that this plan, by rewarding aggression,
actually guarantees future conflict.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Exactly instead of trying to find pragmatic off ramps. Critics
argue that Ukraine's allies have to acknowledge that Putin is
playing for the highest possible stakes and he has no
interest in a compromise that leaves a sovereign, viable Ukraine
in tact.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Okay, so we have this detailed plan, we have intense opposition,
and we have a very cautious President Zelensky who can't
afford to just say no. What actually happens next.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
The diplomatic path is on an aggressive timeline, pushed by
the US. Zelensky's office has confirmed that Ukrainian and US
teams are already working on the plan's points. Technical consultations
are underway.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So they are engaging, even if it's just to stall
or try to modify.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
The terms right, and we can expect direct high level
contact soon. A call between Zelenski and the US administration
head is expected next week.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
That will be the real moment of truth.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
It will be, And at the same time, US officials
are briefing EU ambassadors in Kiev, trying to build consensus
where there is currently deep skepticism. The administration wants a
framework agreement signed in the shortest possible time.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And meanwhile, the war on the ground just continues.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
It continues unobated, and Russia is escalating its tactics to
apply maximum pressure. They're using glide bombs they plan to
produce one hundred and twenty thousand next year, and missiles
to hit energy infrastructure, to hit civilian areas.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
We saw the attack on Turnopul twenty eight dead.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
And Zaparizia five killed. These attacks are designed to undermine
morale and make the prospect of peace, even an unfavorable one,
more palatable.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
So what's Selenski's strategy here? He's in such a difficult position.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
He's likely playing for time. He has to be seen
as engaging constructively, but he's also trying to persuade the
US to use its leverage to pressure Putin into greater concessions.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
To get a better deal, basically to get.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
A better deal. And at the same time, European allies
are continuing to secure their own defense cooperation deals directly
with Ukraine, Spain's alloying money for co production. Germany is
considering sending Taurust missiles that gives Key a little more
breathing room.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
So the outcome of that call next week will be
a critical indicator of which way this is going to go.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
It will show whether the US is willing to accept
substantial modifications or if it insists on this framework, which
so many allies view as codifying Russia's maximalist demands.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
So we've reviewed a monumental peace plan that, if enacted,
would fundamentally redraw the map of Europe, yet it's criticized
by so many as a blueprint for capitulation.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
And what's really fascinating here is how this twenty eight
point proposal tries to use massive financial reconstruction, leveraging those
frozen Russian assets, with the US taking fifty percent of
the profits, and this carefully worded conditional security guarantee as
compensation for these huge territorial losses. It really raises an
important question for you, the listener. Is this framework a
(26:34):
genuine path to ending the killing or does its reliance
on imperial concessions guarantee instability simply pausing a conflict that's
driven by motivations that go way beyond territory and economics.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
That is something worth considering. Very deeply. Thank you for
joining us for this daily story.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Brief final provocative thought. The plan offers full amnesty for
all parties involved in this conflict. Considering the current high
profile corruption scandal in Ukraine and the ongoing invested netigations
into war crimes and atrocities, what are the irreversible moral
and legal costs of granting a universal, sweeping amnesty just
to achieve a political ceasefire
Welcome to the Daily Story Brief. Today, we are digging
into a proposal that is just, i mean, completely reshaped
the conversation around the war in Ukraine. We're talking about
the new, very detailed twenty eight point framework from the
US administration that's aimed at achieving peace.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
And this isn't just another diplomatic effort, you know, this
is a really high stakes, comprehensive framework. It's emerged from
some very quiet back channel negotiations and it's terms. They
require these painful, almost existential concessions from Ukraine while also
offering these unprecedented security guarantees. But those guarantees are well,
(00:37):
they're deeply conditional, and for you the listener, understanding the
balance and the backlash and these twenty eight points is
absolutely key to grasping where this conflict goes next.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Absolutely, we have the full text and we're going to
spend our time today unpacking the specific clauses, everything from
you know, massive territorial changes in military caps to what
those NATO like security guarantees actually mean in practice.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
That distinction is so critical exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Then we'll get into the firestorm of reactions from Key,
from Moscow, and from European capitals. This proposal, I think,
whether it succeeds or fails, is forcing everyone to face
some very very difficult realities.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
And before we even get into the text, we have
to understand the backdrop. Who wrote this, how did this
process even come about? And why did they bypass all
the traditional diplomatic channels, Because the way it was made
is exactly why it's so controversial.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
So let's start right there with the origin story, because
it really does sound like something out of a political thriller.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
This draft plan was quietly developed over the last month,
not through the State Department or anything like that, but
by two well, two extremely colorful and unconventional figures.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
That's the foundational controversy, the unofficial nature of it. You've
got us special Voice de Witcoff and Russian Economic Envoy
Kirol Demetriev. And by using personal voys, you're signaling that
you prioritize a deal, a personal deal, over institutional stability,
and that creates immediate tension, especially with European allies. And
when you look at the drafters themselves, that personal approach
(02:08):
becomes even clearer. Tell us a bit about Steve Wikoff.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Wikoff is a fascinating figure in this He's a sixty
eight year old New York real estate developer, and crucially
he's a loyal personal friend of the current US administration head. Ok,
he's working without pay, using his own private jet for
official business. He is not a career diplomat. He is
a political intermediary.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
His team would point to his experience with the Israel
hamas ceasefire.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Though right they would, But you have to remember that
ceasefire was largely prepared by the outgoing administration before he
even stepped in, I see, and so his involvement here
draws immediate scrutiny. According to reports, his team lacks deep
Russia expertise, and during critical talks with President Putin he
apparently dispensed with a stenographer and relied entirely on Kremlin translators.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Wow, no independent record.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
None, And that lack of oversight is a huge concern
in these kinds of high stakes talks, and some sources
close to Kiev have even accused him of sort of
sighting with Russian interests.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
That really sets the stage. And then on the Russian
side we have Kurl Dmitriev.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yes, Dmitriev is the head of the Russian Direct Investment
Fund the RDIF. He was actually born in Kiev about
fifty years ago, but now he makes a point of
emphasizing he hails in his words, not from Ukraine but
from the USSR, so a.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Very specific identity he's crafting.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
There, very specific. He has a top tier Western education
Stanford Harvard, worked at McKenzie. He's really the face of
Russian economic integration with the West, and his reputation in
the Kremlin wildly ambitious. He has a talent for cultivating,
let's say, the right friends. He's thought to be very
close to Putin's family. Icy during the pandemic, he was
(03:51):
the guy promoting the sputnik V vaccine. But his key
role here is economic cooperation. He thinks in terms of
massive capital projects, shared resources. He even proposed a tunnel
under the bearing straight ones.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
So this is less like traditional state craft and more
like a boardroom takeover of a major conflict.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That's a perfect way to put it, you know. Talks
stalled back in October after the US canceled a meeting
with Putin and imposed some sanctions. It was Dimitriev who
flew to the US met with Witkoff in Miami for
three days and hammered out this draft plan. He's playing
the economic fixer.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
And this brings us to the core controversy over the
plans exclusivity. It was all done in secret, right, largely
without any direct European or even initial Ukrainian involvement exactly.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Some European diplomats said they only learned the details from
the news.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
The reaction was shock and frustration. You know, they are
the primary backers of Ukraine financially and militarily, yet they
were cut out of drafting the future security architecture of
their own continent.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And the White House Defense Press.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Secretary Caroline Leavitt insisted the team was engaged with both
sides Russia and Ukraine equally and that they were seeking
terms for a durable, lasting piece.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
But that claim of equal engagement is directly challenged by Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
It is Solsas, close to the Ukrainian government, confirmed they
were excluded from the drafting process itself. They were only
informed of the broad strokes later on, and.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
The timing felt suspicious to them.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Very It coincided with a major domestic coruption crisis in Kiv,
which we'll get into It raised immediate suspicion that the
US was trying to force a bad deal on a
weakened ally.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So the stage is set an unofficial channel, unconventional negotiators
trying to unilaterally impose a structure on this massive conflict.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Okay, let's unpack the hard numbers and the demands, because
this is this section of the plan that immediately got
labeled capitulation by critics.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
That's right, The core of it requires Ukraine to make
these huge, long resisted concessions, territory, military size, and its
NATO status.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Let's start with the territory point twenty one. This is
probably the hardest pill for Kiv to swallow.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
It is it essentially ratifies Russia's biggest games, both historical
like Crimea and the more recent ones from the current invasion.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
So walk us through the specifics. What regions would Ukraine
have to permanently give up? The plan identifies three regions
that would be permanently relinquished and crucially recognize defacto so
internationally recognized including by the US as Russian territory, which
are Crimea along with the la Hansk and donetskoblasts.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
The whole don Boss region.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
The entire don Bas region. And this is significant because
even now, after years of brutal fighting, Russia only controls
about eighty eight percent of it.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
So Ukraine would be handing over the remaining twelve percent
that they've been fiercely defending.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Exactly Lamb they still control, just to get this piece.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
But what about the other two regions Russia claim to
annex Keersen and Zapparizia.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
For those two, the plan uses a frozen line concept.
The border would just be frozen along the current line
of contacts, so that line becomes the de facto border. Okay,
but the demands for the don Bosco even for they
require a buffer zone.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
A buffer zone tell us about that? That sounds strategically critical.
It is.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
It's a major sticking point. Zero point twenty one mandates
a specific withdrawal. Ukrainian forces must pull back from parts
of Donetsk Oblast they currently control. This area they withdraw
from then becomes a neutral, demilitarized buffer zone. But here's
the real kicker.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
What's up?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Even this buffer zone would be internationally recognized as territory
of the Russian Federation.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Wait, so Ukrainian troops pull out, it's demilitarized, but it's
legally Russia's land.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Legally it's ceded to Russia. Russian troops would be barred
from entering it, but on a map, it's Russian.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
So Russia gets all of Crimea, all of don Bas,
including territory they haven't won militarily, and a frozen line elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It fundamentally rewrites the map, and critics immediately said, this
is capitulation you're giving putin territorial victories he failed to
secure on the battlefield.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Is there anything Russia gives up?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
The plan says, Russia agrees to relinquish other agreed territories
it controls outside those five regions, but the main prize,
the industrial heartland of don Bossm Crimea, that all stays
with Russia.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Okay, Beyond territory, the plan puts severe restrictions on Ukraine's
military Moscow's been demanding this for years.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Yes, and these limits are designed to well to effectively
neuter Ukraine as a significant long term military power.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
How so, what are the specifics?
Speaker 2 (08:23):
First, a force cap The size of Ukraine's armed forces
would be limited to six hundred thousand personnel.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
And that's a big cut, a huge cut.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
A reduction of hundreds of thousands of active troops according
to reports. And they'd also be forbidden from having certain
long range weapons.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
So a smaller army, fewer advanced weapons that really degrade
their ability to defend themselves. What about NATO?
Speaker 2 (08:45):
This is the big one point seven. It's a dual requirement. First,
Ukraine must write into its own constitution that it will
never join NATO, a constitutional change, a constitutional change, but
it goes further. NATO itself must include a corresponding statute
that prohibits Ukraine's future admission.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
So it's a lock on both sides, a legally binding
commitment from Ukraine and from the Alliance.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Exactly, it slams the doorshut permanently.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
What about foreign troops? Could they have say un peacekeepers.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Nope, explicitly barred Points eight and nine clarify that no
NATO troops and no foreign forces at all, including peacekeepers.
The country has to remain strategically neutralized.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
But I thought I saw something in point nine about
fighter jets.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yes, in what feels like a token gesture, it says
European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
In Poland, not in Ukraine correct.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
The idea is that air cover would have to come
from outside its borders, while the country itself remains militarily
reduced and constitutionally neutral.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
This is a complete reversal of Ukraine's strategic goals since
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
It is, and this brings us to the central paradox
of the whole plan. Ukraine is asked to trade its
number one security goal, NATO's Article five Collective Defense, for
a different kind of promise, a very specific but also
highly conditional security promise.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
So let's get into that. The plan promises reliable security
guarantees zero point five. That sounds good on paper, but
what does NATO like really mean here?
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Well, a senior US official confirmed the guarantee is modeled
on Article five principles. This means the US and its
European allies would view an attack on Ukraine as an
attack on the Transatlantic community. That's very potent diplomatic language.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Okay, so they'd view it that way, But what would
they do? What's the response if.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Russia invades this new, smaller Ukraine Again, the response would
include three concrete actions. First, a decisive, coordinated military response. Second,
the immediate reinstatement of all global sanctions, and third, Russia
loses recognition for the new territories it gained. All the
benefits of the deal are gone.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
A decisive, coordinated military response. That's the part that sounds
NATO like. But let's be really clear here, does that
commit US troops to the battlefield?
Speaker 2 (11:00):
And that is the crucial ambiguity That is the difference
between NATO like and NATO right. The source material is
very deliberate in its wording. It says they would view
the attack as an attack on the community, and the
response would be a coordinated military response. It does not
explicitly say who executes it or what kind of forces
are deployed.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So hypothetically, if the US sends drones and intelligence support
but no boots on.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
The ground, does that count. It feels like a lot
of wiggle room.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
That's the entire point. It's deterrence theater. Article five is
a legally binding guarantee that triggers immediate mandatory action. This
plan promises mandatory consultation and action, but the intensity and
nature of that action are well, they're negotiable. They're subject
to the political will of future leaders.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Which makes it fundamentally less reliable than actual NATO.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Membership exactly, and that's why Kiev is so deeply skeptical.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
And these guarantees, they also come with some very strict
conditions for Ukraine itself.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Absolutely, the plan specifies how Ukraine can live use these guarantees.
If Ukraine invades Russia, they're gone. And this is a
very specific one. If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow
or Saint Petersburg without cause, the guarantee is void without cause.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
That's an interesting qualifier.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
It is also the US receives compensation for providing the guarantee,
which sort of turns it into a paid service. It
commercializes the whole arrangement. But there's one point here, zero
point twenty two, that seems to lock in the territorial
concessions permanently.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
This is the critical limitation. It's the point that turns
this from a defense packed into a permanent territorial settlement.
It says the security guarantees do not apply if either
Russia or Ukraine tries to alter the agreed upon borders
by force.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
So if Ukraine ever tried to militarily retake Crimea or
the Dambas, the guarantee is gone. They're on their own.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
They forfeit the only protection they received in the deal.
They would be trading their sovereign right to restore their
nineteen ninety one borders in exchange for this NATO like.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
So the guarantee is a shield against a future invasion
of the new Ukraine, but it's also a chain preventing
Ukraine from ever undoing the deal.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
That's the fundamental paradox, protection and exchange for self limitation,
and that's why many Ukrainian officials see the security part
as just woefully insufficient.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Okay, So beyond the tail field, this deal offers a
massive financial care, especially for reconstruction, and a path for
Russia to get out of isolation. Let's look at the
financial architecture.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
The plan promises a powerful global package for rebuilding Ukraine, modernization, infrastructure,
resource extraction. This is the sweet nerve for Kiev, and
the immediate focus is on mobilizing those hundreds of billions
in frozen Russian assets.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
How exactly would those funds be used? According to point fourteen,
and you know who benefits.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
It's a complex, multi layered mechanism and it's already raised
some eyebrows in Europe. First one hundred billion dollars in
frazen Russian assets would be invested in US led efforts
for Ukraine's reconstruction. Of the profits generated from this venture,
the action returns on the investment. The US would receive
a full fifty percent wait.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Hold on one hundred billion in Russian assets goes into
a US LED fund, and the US gets fifty percent
of the profits from rebuilding Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
That's what the plan says.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
That sounds less like pure aid and more like a
major financial incentive for the US to broker this deal.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
It definitely adds a commercial layer to the diplomacy. It
frames the US role not just as a security guarantor,
but as a primary financial beneficiary of the peace framework
well way Europe. Europe is supposed to add another one
hundred billion dollars for reconstruction, but the main mechanism for
using the frozen Russian assets is structured to reward US
corporate involvement.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
So that's the cart for Ukraine. What about Russia? What's
their path back to global standing?
Speaker 2 (14:42):
The plan offers Russia a clear route back. Sanctions would
be lifted in stages, case by case, tied to compliance,
and critically, Russia would be invited to rejoin the G eight,
restoring the status at lost after annex and Crimea in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
And there's also a long term economic cooperation deal mandated
between the US and Russia.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yes, a massive one. It covers energy, natural resources, AI
data centers, and even Arctic rare earth metal extraction. It's
a full revival of bilateral economic ties.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
So let's talk about the political and legal restructuring. How
does the plan ensure Russia holds up its end and
what demands are placed on Kiev.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
For Russia, point sixteen requires it to write a policy
of non aggression towards Europe and Ukraine into its own laws,
and it mandates a new dialogue between Russia and NATO
mediated by the US.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
And for Ukraine, the political process kicks off immediately.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Yes, Ukraine must hold elections in one hundred days.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
One hundred days. That's an incredibly short timeline, especially during
a period of national crisis. In concession.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
It introduces huge domestic political volatility.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
And then we get to one of the most controversial points,
point twenty six the amnesty class.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
This one has explosive implications. It says all parties involved
in the conflict would receive full amnesty for actions during
the war and agree not to pursue future claims.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
All parties inv does that include political figures and people
implicated in war crimes, or even the recent corruption scandals
in Kiev.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
That ambiguity, many critics argue, is intentional. It's a sweeping
measure to wipe the slate completely clean. It effectively eliminates
international legal pressure, especially on investigations into alleged war crimes
by Russian forces in places like Bucha. It's a massive
concession for Russia.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
But the moral cost for Kiev to agree to amnesty
for those responsible for the most brutal acts of the
war it's immense, it is, and.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
As you mentioned, it could also potentially shield figures involved
in wartime corruption if they're deemed involved in the conflict.
It's a convenient legal shield for both sides.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
And finally, who oversees all of this.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
The agreement would be legally binding, monitored and guaranteed by
a peace council led by the US administration head Donald J.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Trump.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
He would effectively control the consequences of any future violations
and an immediate cease fire takes effect once all parties agree.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So the timing of this proposal could not have been worse.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
For Kiev, not at all. It arrived as President Zelenski
was already facing intense pressure militarily and politically. It made
his response an incredibly difficult tightrope walk.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
His official public response was so careful, wasn't it? Very diplomatic?
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Extremely calculator. He confirmed he got the plan and said
he intends to speak with President Trump about diplomatic opportunities.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
He used phrases like constructive, honest, and swift work, but
then he added that the proposals must be genuine and
deliver a dignified.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
Piece, and that phrase dignified piece is diplomatic code for
this cannot be a capitulation.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
He also seemed to be making a public plea, saying
Ukraine needs a real peace, one that will not be
broken by a third invasion, and that the US has
the power to ensure that Russia's willingness to end the
war finally become serious.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
That is precisely the tight rope. He's basically saying, use
your leverage to get a better deal from Putin. Don't
force these terms on us.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Because he can't just reject it outright.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
He can't the US cutoff financial aid. He can't risk
alienating the broker of this deal. It would be catastrophic.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
But internally in Kiev the reaction was not so diplomatic,
not at all.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It was fierce and immediate officials called it unrealistic, absurd
and dangerous. Alexander Moreshko, who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee,
called it absolutely senseless and warned it could be a
Russian provocation just to by time.
Speaker 1 (18:28):
And one lawmaker, Yaroslav Yurkishin, he drew a very dark
historical parallel.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yes, he compared it to the nineteen thirty eight Munich Agreement,
where Czechoslovakia was forced to trade territory for what turned
out to be illusory security guarantees.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
That comparison shows the deep fear that this is just
a pause before the next war.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
It does, and you have to remember the domestic context.
This plan landed right in the middle of a massive
corruption scandal in Kiev.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Tell us about that the.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Investigation is looking into the alleged theft of one hundred
million dollars and it implicated his former business partner. It
forced him to dismiss two cabinet ministers. It has seriously
shaken his government.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
And this internal weakness creates a political vulnerability.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
A vulnerability that Western diplomats suggest the timing was designed
to exploit. One diplomat, said Kirol Dmitriev spun this plan
at a time when Zelensky is weak, hoping a vulnerable
leader could be forced to accept it.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
So it's a pressure tactic.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Absolutely. Ukraine is facing nightly bombardment of its energy sector.
Russian forces are making gains in the East, they have
manpower shortages. It is an excruciating time to be presented
with what many their view as surrender terms.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
So it sounds like the plan is winning very few
friends among Ukraine's allies. What are the key objections coming
from Europe?
Speaker 2 (19:45):
The reaction from European capitals was one of immediate and
deep unease. The EU officially said it was troubled by
the plan. One official just called it capitulation.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
In their main argument against it.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
They rejected its moral premise. The EU Foreign policy chief
Kajakullis stressed that in this war there is one aggressor
and one victim.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Right.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
She pointed out that Russia has made no visible concessions,
they're just formalizing gains they took by force. Her point
was that rewarding aggression only encourages more.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
Aggression, and other major European powers echoed that they did.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
French and Spanish officials were adamant that peace cannot be
a capitulation and must guarantee a sovereign, democratic Ukrainian state,
and the British government emphasized that only the Ukrainian people
can determine their future.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So Europe sees it as a Russian blueprint dressed up
as a peace plan. How did Moscow respond publicly to
a plan they helped write.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Officially, the Kremlin played it very cool, very ambivalent. Spokesperson
Dmitri Peskov initially said Moscow had nothing new to add.
They later even denied that any negotiations were underway, claiming
they were just waiting for Ukraine's official response, which gives.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Them plausible deniability if it fails.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Exactly, but the Russian can envoy Dmitriyev, the co author,
he was quietly confident. He said, we feel the Russian
position is really being.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Heard, really being heard. That says a lot.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
It confirms that Russia believes the framework meets their maximalist demands,
especially on territory and military neutralization.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
And we also saw some pretty shocking speculation from Kremlin
aligned commentators about what happens if Zelensky says no.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
This is where you see the dark side of the
pressure campaign. One commentator, a former US Army officer named
Stanislov Krpivnik. He openly speculated about drastic consequences, what financial blackmail.
For one, a massive smear campaign portrays Zelensky as a warmonger,
rejecting piece. And then he mentioned a forceful scenario. A
forceful scenario an internal coup led by the military or
(21:47):
even and he called this the most radical option, a
heroic death.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
My goodness, that's not diplomacy, that's outright intimidation.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
It is. It's designed to make it clear that rejection
carries a very high, very very personal risk.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
So to really understand the intensity of the resistance here,
we have to look beyond the pragmatic demands and address
what critics see as the plan's fundamental.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Flaw right, and that flaw is the failure to recognize
President Putin's true imperial ambitions. The argument is that this
US plan is based on a fatal misunderstanding of Putin's motivation.
It views him through a Western lens of cost benefit analysis, the.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Idea that he can be bargained with through economic concentives
or land swaps.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Precisely, Critics, including those that the Atlantic Council, say it's
delusional to think that he can be satisfied by promises
of minor territorial concessions. They believe he's not driven by
simple military costs or GDP. He's driven by a perceived
existential struggle to revive Russia's great power status and secure
his own place in history.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
So if his goals are historical and geopolitical, not transactional,
then offering him an economic off ramp is just missing
the point.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
It's worse than missing the point. The source material highlights
that the US administration's approach comparing this to a property
dispute overlooks the fact that Putin is fighting for Ukraine itself,
not just pieces of land. His stated goal is to
extinguish Ukrainian independence, and he's.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Been quite public about this, comparing himself to Peter the Great.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
He has he talks about returning historically Russian lands. He's
basically said all Ukraine is ours. For someone with that mindset,
a joint venture for Arctic rare earth metals is not
going to satisfy them.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
So from that perspective, offering concessions is actually counterproductive.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
It is it just convinces Putin that his opponents are weak,
that they lack the political will and historical stamina to
stand up to him. It confirms his belief that if
he just pushes hard enough, the West will eventually back down.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
So the core critique is that this plan, by rewarding aggression,
actually guarantees future conflict.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Exactly instead of trying to find pragmatic off ramps. Critics
argue that Ukraine's allies have to acknowledge that Putin is
playing for the highest possible stakes and he has no
interest in a compromise that leaves a sovereign, viable Ukraine
in tact.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Okay, so we have this detailed plan, we have intense opposition,
and we have a very cautious President Zelensky who can't
afford to just say no. What actually happens next.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
The diplomatic path is on an aggressive timeline, pushed by
the US. Zelensky's office has confirmed that Ukrainian and US
teams are already working on the plan's points. Technical consultations
are underway.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So they are engaging, even if it's just to stall
or try to modify.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
The terms right, and we can expect direct high level
contact soon. A call between Zelenski and the US administration
head is expected next week.
Speaker 1 (24:36):
That will be the real moment of truth.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
It will be, And at the same time, US officials
are briefing EU ambassadors in Kiev, trying to build consensus
where there is currently deep skepticism. The administration wants a
framework agreement signed in the shortest possible time.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And meanwhile, the war on the ground just continues.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
It continues unobated, and Russia is escalating its tactics to
apply maximum pressure. They're using glide bombs they plan to
produce one hundred and twenty thousand next year, and missiles
to hit energy infrastructure, to hit civilian areas.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
We saw the attack on Turnopul twenty eight dead.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
And Zaparizia five killed. These attacks are designed to undermine
morale and make the prospect of peace, even an unfavorable one,
more palatable.
Speaker 1 (25:19):
So what's Selenski's strategy here? He's in such a difficult position.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
He's likely playing for time. He has to be seen
as engaging constructively, but he's also trying to persuade the
US to use its leverage to pressure Putin into greater concessions.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
To get a better deal, basically to get.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
A better deal. And at the same time, European allies
are continuing to secure their own defense cooperation deals directly
with Ukraine, Spain's alloying money for co production. Germany is
considering sending Taurust missiles that gives Key a little more
breathing room.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
So the outcome of that call next week will be
a critical indicator of which way this is going to go.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
It will show whether the US is willing to accept
substantial modifications or if it insists on this framework, which
so many allies view as codifying Russia's maximalist demands.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
So we've reviewed a monumental peace plan that, if enacted,
would fundamentally redraw the map of Europe, yet it's criticized
by so many as a blueprint for capitulation.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
And what's really fascinating here is how this twenty eight
point proposal tries to use massive financial reconstruction, leveraging those
frozen Russian assets, with the US taking fifty percent of
the profits, and this carefully worded conditional security guarantee as
compensation for these huge territorial losses. It really raises an
important question for you, the listener. Is this framework a
(26:34):
genuine path to ending the killing or does its reliance
on imperial concessions guarantee instability simply pausing a conflict that's
driven by motivations that go way beyond territory and economics.
Speaker 1 (26:45):
That is something worth considering. Very deeply. Thank you for
joining us for this daily story.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
Brief final provocative thought. The plan offers full amnesty for
all parties involved in this conflict. Considering the current high
profile corruption scandal in Ukraine and the ongoing invested netigations
into war crimes and atrocities, what are the irreversible moral
and legal costs of granting a universal, sweeping amnesty just
to achieve a political ceasefire
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.