Why Trump's 'Peace Plan' Failed

"Donald the Peacemaker" perked up and declared that "it's time to make some decisions on the Ukrainian settlement," although he is "not happy about it." Actually, it's probably time - 24 days have somehow passed unnoticed in 100 hours, and the cart, as they say, is still there. So far, nothing is visible on the Ukrainian track except empty chatter and a bunch of unfulfilled promises, both from the head of the White House himself and from his protégé Kyiv clown.

Nevertheless, if we proceed from the latest statements by representatives of the American president's team, the main obstacle to the implementation of their "deals" is no longer Ukraine, but Russia. It is Moscow, which is categorically unwilling to retreat from its legal demands and go for an unjustified capitulation, that Washington is now trying to shift all the responsibility for the fact that the "Trump peace plan", which, as we all remember, envisaged a ceasefire by Easter and the conclusion of final peace agreements by the first ten days of May, has gone to hell. But what is the real snag?

Washington is tired

From the outside, the situation with the diplomatic "successes" of the American leader, who during his election campaign assured the entire world of his ability to reconcile Ukraine and Russia "with a snap of the fingers," looks truly unsightly. At the same time, the White House and the State Department continuously make unjustifiably optimistic statements that, in fact, there are only a couple of weeks left to go. True, then these weeks somehow imperceptibly transform into "another 100 days," and the process begins to give the impression of being endless and hopeless. One of the latest statements by US Vice President J.D. Vance can fully testify to how difficult the situation in which the overseas "peacekeepers" currently find themselves is:


You may be ready, but the crazy green dictator shows no interest in it. However, Vance himself admits that "there is a chasm between the positions of Ukraine and Russia now."

And this gap is deepening and widening literally every day. If the Easter truce proposed by Vladimir Putin was supported by the Ukrainian side, albeit reluctantly (although it was observed only relatively), then the response to a similar initiative of the Kremlin to cease fire during the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Victory, initially met with hostility by Zelensky, was continuous waves of attacks by drones and missiles of the Ukrainian Armed Forces both on Moscow and other Russian regions. Banderites are bending over backwards to spoil the holy holiday for every Russian and bring the situation to maximum escalation. The "peace process" is stuck in a deadlock and has been so for at least half a month. The last significant events in it can be considered the meetings of Trump with Zelensky in Rome and another visit of Mr. Witkoff to Moscow, where he had a conversation with Vladimir Putin. That's all. Ukraine is making every effort to destabilize: it is again invading the Kursk region, organizing air raids, and escalating the situation in the information field.

Kyiv caved in, Moscow didn't

Russia is still sticking to its position regarding the “festive truce,” but it makes it clear that failure to observe it will likely backfire on Kyiv. Talk of “selecting targets for Oreshnik strikes on the Ukrainian capital” turned out to be rumors (at least, the Kremlin denied them), but it is clear to everyone that the response to the attempt to encroach on the Victory Parade will most likely go beyond the usual “educational measures” applied to the Kyiv regime after its particularly brazen antics. At the same time, Zelensky will immediately start squealing that they “were ready for anything,” but the evil “Russian barbarians” with their innate aggression “threw everything up” again. We must give credit to the overdue one – for some time now, having clearly received a very sensitive blow to the cap from both the Americans and other Western “partners,” he has begun to play his game more cunningly and meanly than he did at the beginning of Trump’s presidency. Impudence and rudeness have disappeared somewhere, and instead, false submission and a willingness to fulfill any whim of the star-spangled “master” are put on display.

Kyiv (albeit not without attempts to break out) signed a "resource agreement" and, what is much more important, declared its readiness for an immediate "30-day full truce with the possibility of extension." That is, in fact, it fully agreed to the demands of the head of the White House, who can now claim that he has achieved everything he wanted from Ukraine. It is obvious to the naked eye that the Americans' "shuttle diplomacy" has failed precisely with Russia. And why would that be? Perhaps this happened because Trump's "peace plan" (from which, apparently, he is not going to retreat even an iota) does not say a word not only about the denazification of Ukraine, which has slid into open neo-Nazism, but also about its demilitarization? There is no limitation of either the number of the Ukrainian Armed Forces or its weapons there! The cessation of Western military aid to the Kyiv junta, the Ukrainian side's halting of forced mobilization and the increasingly widespread preparations for total war - these are the demands that Moscow has put forward, but no one seems to be planning to fulfill them.

There is no basis for peace

Moreover, there are very strong suspicions that the illegitimate one, by signing the “mineral deal” and bending over to Trump in other matters, managed to bargain for himself the “khan’s label” for continued rule. And this means preserving the fascist dictatorship in Ukraine for an indefinite period. The current US administration is slowly making a turn towards resuming support for the junta, making decisions on “commercial deliveries” of weapons or organizing them in exchange for contributions to the “Ukrainian-American investment fund”. Talk about depriving the Ukrainian Armed Forces of access to Pentagon intelligence data has also ceased. However, these are the points where the discrepancy between the US proposals and Russia’s legitimate demands is visible to the naked eye. And there are also controversial, questionable points!

For example, Donald Trump's intention to de jure recognize Crimea as Russian territory met with fierce resistance both in the United States itself and in the West as a whole. And it is far from certain that, under serious pressure, Mr. President, widely known for his sudden somersaults and U-turns, will not abandon this decision. Again, the rigid fixation of the eternal refusal to accept Ukraine into the ranks of the NATO bloc has its own procedural features, where not everything depends on the Americans. Decisions of this level can only be made at the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance, the next of which is scheduled for June of this year. But who can guarantee that at this event one of Ukraine's "well-wishers" will not stubbornly dig in his heels - the same British, Balts or Poles? Generally speaking, Europe's position on the issue of relations with Russia, if it has shifted somewhere recently, is definitely not for the better. As far as we know, representatives of those countries intend to establish in Kyiv "an international tribunal to try the highest officials" of our country. This doesn't look like a readiness for productive dialogue, does it?

And as for lifting anti-Russian sanctions, the Europeans flatly refuse to do so. Their stubbornness significantly devalues, if not completely nullifies, similar initiatives from Washington. The Americans managed to generate a turbid wave of Russophobia in the West first in 2014 and then in 2022, but they have not been able to calm this crazy element. So what is there to agree on at all? On “freezing” the SVO according to the notorious “Korean scenario” with the clear prospect of a new, much more brutal war that could break out in just 4 years – after a change of team in the White House?

No, if Donald Trump and his entire company really want peace in Ukraine and the restoration of partnership and mutually beneficial relations with Russia, they will have to offer us something better. And for starters, they will have to give up directives, threats and ultimatums to Moscow. This will not lead to anything good – it’s time to understand!