Nearly four years of war later, Putin gets better peace terms than when Russia was winning

After nearly four years of brutal warfare, Russia is being offered peace terms more favorable than those it rejected when its military position was far stronger.

In March 2022, Istanbul peace talks proposed leaving Crimea's status "to be clarified within 15 years"-ambiguous language that avoided formal recognition. Russia walked away, gambling that continued war would deliver better terms.

Now, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive equipment losses, Trump's 28-point plan gives Moscow what it couldn't win: immediate recognition of Crimea as "de facto Russian," Ukrainian military restrictions, a constitutional NATO ban, and security guarantees that void if Ukraine tries to retake its territory.

The plan's genesis traces to August's Alaska summit, where Trump met Putin expecting to pressure Russia toward a ceasefire. Instead, Trump emerged adopting Putin's preferred approach: skip immediate ceasefire, move directly to "comprehensive peace" addressing Russia's territorial, military, and NATO demands.

What followed were months of quiet US-Russia bilateral talks that produced a framework decidedly favorable to Moscow, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The timing amplifies the pressure. Just nine days before the plan landed in Kyiv, Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies exposed a $100 million kickback scheme at the state nuclear company-forcing two ministers' suspension and sending President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's former business partner fleeing the country. Trump now demands Ukraine sign by Thanksgiving while its government faces calls for sweeping resignations.

How Alaska changed Trump's approach to Russia

Trump flew to the 15 August Alaska summit telling reporters his main goal was an immediate ceasefire-the outcome that would freeze Russia's territorial losses and create pressure for Moscow to negotiate from weakness.

After nearly three hours with Putin, Trump reversed himself, writing on social media that "the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement" rather than pursuing a ceasefire first. Trump had adopted Putin's framework: skip the immediate ceasefire Russia didn't want, and move straight to "comprehensive peace" on Putin's terms.

Subsequently, Trump came away "renewed in his belief that Putin wanted to make a deal," while Putin's maximalist demands never shifted. The summit achieved Putin's objective: shifting Trump's framework from pressuring Russia to accept losses, toward pressuring Ukraine to accept concessions.

When the plan emerged, European officials admitted they were "caught by surprise." EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stated the obvious: "We haven't heard of any concessions on the Russian side."

The corruption crisis that weakened Ukraine's hand

As the 28-point plan neared completion, Ukraine's internal crisis deepened. Anti-corruption investigators allege Tymur Mindich-Zelenskyy's former business partner-ran a "high-level criminal organization" that embezzled $100 million from energy infrastructure contracts.

Mindich fled Ukraine on 10 November. Raids began on 11 November. Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko was suspended. The Trump peace plan arrived on 20 November, giving Ukraine days to respond while its government faces pressure for sweeping resignations.

Meanwhile, Russia faces new economic pressure from US sanctions targeting major energy companies. But Moscow shows no urgency, maintaining maximalist positions while Trump demands Ukraine decide within days-creating asymmetric pressure that serves Russian interests.

Explore further

“Carlson” flees: $100M corruption scandal erupts inside Ukraine’s nuclear sector

How Russia's demands evolved across three plans

Key patterns in the comparison below:

• Territory: Istanbul delayed Crimea recognition for 15 years. Trump demands immediate "de facto" acceptance of Crimea AND Donetsk and Luhansk.
• Military size: Istanbul negotiations collapsed over troop numbers. Trump's "compromise" of 600,000 is still a 280,000 cut from current forces.
• Security guarantees: Trump's Article 5-style protection voids if Ukraine strikes Russian cities or attempts territorial restoration-effectively prohibiting sovereignty defense.
• NATO: Constitutional ban plus permanent exclusion-Moscow's core 2014 demand, now delivered by Washington.

Three peace plans compared

Ukraine's response: "Not a third invasion"

Zelenskyy struck a measured tone in his evening address, saying Ukrainian and US teams would work on the proposals. But he emphasized Ukraine needs "a real peace-one that will not be broken by a third invasion"-a direct reference to the pattern where Russia uses "peace" to prepare for larger wars.

At the UN Security Council, Deputy Permanent Representative Khrystyna Hayovyshyn drew explicit red lines that directly contradict Trump's plan:

• "There will never be any recognition-formal or otherwise-of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as 'Russian'. Our land is not for sale."
• Ukraine "would not accept any limits on its right to self-defense or on the size and capabilities of its armed forces."
• Ukraine "will not tolerate any infringement on its sovereignty, including its sovereign right to choose the alliances it seeks to join."

Many Ukrainian officials describe the terms as "unacceptable" and tantamount to capitulation. European leaders warn any arrangement "cannot be a capitulation."

Moscow's satisfied response signals whose plan this is

Russia's reaction reveals much about the plan's strategic implications. Kirill Dmitriev, who helped draft the proposal, told Axios "we feel that the Russian position is really being heard."

Moscow's enthusiasm for peace talks signals that proposed terms favor Russian strategic goals. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov maintained that any settlement must eliminate "root causes"-the same language Russia used before Minsk-2 to justify demands for Ukrainian constitutional changes.

Russia hasn't conceded anything; it's simply waited for a US president willing to pressure Ukraine rather than Russia.

Explore further

Ukraine’s victory plan is dead, killed by Russian nuclear mind games

The question: Pragmatic peace or strategic defeat?

Trump wants Ukraine to sign by Thanksgiving-creating asymmetric pressure where he pushes Ukraine toward concessions while Russia maintains maximalist demands. The internal Ukrainian crisis and American impatience are doing negotiating work that three years of warfare couldn't accomplish.

Europe scrambles for an alternative response. Leaders warn against "capitulation" but haven't presented a unified counter-proposal. Much depends on whether the EU holds firm or fragments under US pressure for a quick deal.

But the central question isn't whether this deal ends the war. History suggests it won't.

The Minsk agreements of 2014-2015 followed this exact pattern: Russia invaded, the West pushed Ukraine toward "pragmatic compromises," and peace talks gave Moscow breathing room to prepare for full-scale invasion seven years later. Leaked emails from Putin's advisor Vladislav Surkov revealed the strategy explicitly-use "peace" to legitimize territorial seizures, embed Russian influence mechanisms, and build springboards for the next escalation.

Explore further

Russia’s last “Ukraine peace deal” led to Europe’s biggest war since WWII. Here’s why this one could be worse.

Surkov himself admitted in 2024 that Minsk-2 "legitimized the first partition of Ukraine" and that "peace is nothing more than the continuation of war by other means."

The Trump plan mirrors that structure: recognize Russian territorial control, limit Ukraine's military capabilities, ban NATO membership, and provide "security guarantees" that void when Ukraine defends itself. Russia emerges with internationally legitimized gains, a weakened neighbor, and proof that aggression plus patience defeats Western resolve.

The difference between 2015 and 2025? Russia would exit this "peace" with a battle-tested military, 500,000+ mobilized troops, and deeper ties to China, Iran, and North Korea. Western intelligence warns Putin could be preparing for broader European confrontation within five years-emboldened by every deal that rewarded aggression.

For Ukraine, the choice is stark: accept terms that trade immediate crisis relief for long-term strategic vulnerability, or maintain red lines while government crisis deepens and US support wavers.

For the West, the question is whether Trump's conviction that personal rapport with Putin can deliver quick wins serves American interests-or whether it repeats the Minsk trap at continental scale, demonstrating that nuclear blackmail works, conquest pays, and each "peace" simply sets the stage for the next invasion.

The evidence from 2015 to 2022 answers that question. Russia doesn't negotiate peace deals. It negotiates launchpads.

Three peace plans compared