The so-called Putin–Trump “pact”—a 28-point document that has surfaced in recent days and is being presented as a potential roadmap to peace in the Russia–Ukraine war—demands a sober and brutally honest assessment.
Calling it a peace plan is misleading.
In reality, it is nothing less than an act of Ukrainian capitulation, reflecting with disturbing accuracy the strategic objectives most congenial to the Kremlin. And if we have learned anything from recent history, it is that yielding to an aggressor under the guise of diplomacy does not bring peace—it lays the groundwork for the next, even more dangerous conflict.
The networks shaping the “peace plan”
Every major geopolitical initiative must be understood in terms of who shapes it, in whose interests, and through what networks. One cannot ignore the questions surrounding the role of Kirill Dmitriev—a key figure operating through Russia’s sovereign wealth funds, with long-standing links to Kremlin influence operations and foreign-policy messaging in the United States.
It is not inconceivable that he is among the principal architects of the ongoing information operation, deployed by Russian intelligence services as a so-called “entry point” into Western political discourse.
Several intermediaries involved in circulating the plan have also drawn attention, including Barak Ravid of Axios, who first made the document public, and especially President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, a real-estate magnate of Russian descent with no diplomatic experience but clear business interests that have previously extended toward Russia.
In the background, a power struggle is also unfolding at the top of the US administration.
Vice President JD Vance is seeking to strengthen his position, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears to be mitigating the diplomatic fallout as best he can.
An influence operation disguised as diplomacy
None of this provides a definitive answer as to who precisely drafted the document or when. However, it outlines a pattern that Europe cannot afford to ignore: Russia’s influence operations extend far beyond propaganda channels or conventional diplomatic maneuvers.
They operate through business interests, personal networks, the endless bubbles of social media, useful idiots, and naïve “peace proposals” that collectively convey one message—Ukraine must surrender its rights and its future.
What is clear is that Russia has used this information operation to sow significant confusion.
America’s credibility as a drafter of peace initiatives has taken a serious blow, and Western allies now face a deeply uncomfortable internal dilemma: how to preserve the cohesion of the alliance when the Trump administration, instead of pressuring the aggressor, has issued an ultimatum to the victim.
The core message of the document, now visible to the world, is simple: Ukraine should willingly cede its territory and sovereignty. In the historical context, this is alarmingly familiar. The 1938 Munich Agreement was also presented as a peace accord, but in reality, it meant the forced subjugation of a small country and the reward of an aggressor. Europeans hardly need a reminder of its consequences.
The so-called Putin–Trump pact follows the same logic. It seeks to normalize the results of aggression, to push Ukraine first into a geopolitical vacuum between Moscow’s sphere of influence and a hesitant West, and ultimately to dismantle Ukrainian statehood altogether.
This would not bring peace to Europe or the world—it would return us to an era in which brute force overrides international law and small nations once again become bargaining chips.
Europe’s existential choice
Approving such a document would be a strategic catastrophe for Europe.
Trending Now
First: Ukraine’s sovereignty would effectively end. A country that has resisted Russia’s war of conquest for more than 11 years—proving its resilience and its commitment to defending the core values of the free world—would be forced to swallow an aggression that violates the UN Charter and the foundations of European security.
Second: all of Europe would become more vulnerable. Russia would conclude that military force pays off and that the West is prepared to sacrifice its principles in the name of “peace.” History is unequivocal: such signals do not end wars—they invite new ones. Russia’s strategic enablers—North Korea, Iran, and China—are watching closely.
It is precisely for these reasons that Europe must do the opposite of what the “pact” prescribes:
- Maintain unity. The Kremlin has worked for years to fracture the West. Breaking Western unity would be a strategic jackpot for Moscow.
- Punish the aggressor. Contrary to the blanket amnesty proposed in the pact, Europe must continue building an international tribunal to ensure that the gravest crime against peace—aggression—and the war crimes committed in its course do not go unpunished.
- Continue supporting Ukraine. Only by applying comprehensive pressure on the aggressor can we achieve a just and lasting peace in Europe.
- Affirm clearly that Europe’s future will not be determined by any autocrat or externally imposed “peace plan.” Our future will be decided by us.
- Recognize Ukraine’s central role in securing peace in Europe. Ukraine belongs to Europe’s political and value space, because only through its inclusion can stability on the continent be ensured. Ukraine’s future will be determined not in Moscow or Washington, but by the Ukrainian people themselves.
Deterrence, not delusion
We stand today before a choice we have faced several times in the twentieth century: believe the aggressor’s “promises of peace,” or acknowledge that genuine peace can arise only from deterrence, resolve, and values we refuse to betray.
Europe’s states must shape their future in a way that prevents our adversaries from fracturing the common front of freedom. And we must never leave any freedom-loving European nation alone at the moment when “peace” is offered at the cost of its sovereignty.
Therefore, it is crucial that the coalition of willing states abandons its reactive posture and finally takes control of the escalation ladder.
Diplomacy will likely have to wait—the conditions for a just peace are still absent. Russia seeks to destroy Ukraine and to secure a veto over NATO enlargement. Ukraine seeks not only to survive, but to join the European Union and NATO.
Guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty would be a victory for Europe. Forcing Ukraine into submission would mark an irreversible step into a new and far more dangerous era—precisely the kind of era a fundamentally fascist Russia desires, and one that a free Europe cannot permit.
Editor's note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press' editorial team may or may not share them.
Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press
