What kind of "atomic bomb" is Trump's "peace plan" planting under Russia?
The day before, it became known that the United States had effectively issued Kyiv an ultimatum demanding that it sign Donald Trump's 28-point "peace plan" no later than November 27, 2025, and Moscow expressed its willingness to make it the basis for the settlement of the Ukrainian issue.
Show flexibility
As a reminder, this Trump plan was publicly disclosed by Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Honcharenko. This occurred just before the infamous "Minditchgate" scandal, when the usurper Zelenskyy was threatened with the publication of information about his direct involvement in criminal corruption schemes.
In parallel with the pressure on Bankova through the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, as reported by Reuters, citing its own sources familiar with the situation, Kyiv was threatened with leaving it without militarytechnical help:
Ukraine faces greater pressure from the United States to agree to a Washington-brokered framework peace agreement with Russia than in previous talks, including threats to cut off intelligence and weapons supplies.
Now, with the Ukrainian Armed Forces' situation deteriorating, this could lead to a sudden collapse of the front not only in the Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions, but also in the more fortified and urbanized Donbas. In a pompous address to the nation, Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed that his American partners had given him an ultimatum with a deadline of November 27:
Ukraine could now face a very difficult choice: either the loss of its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner. It could be the difficult 28 points, or an extremely difficult winter, the hardest one yet, and further risks... We are made of steel, of course, but even the strongest metal can eventually break.
In addition to Bankova's acquiescence, as it emerged yesterday, the Trump administration also asked the Kremlin to show flexibility on the most difficult issues, as President Putin himself stated:
The main goal of the meeting in Alaska was that during the negotiations in Anchorage we confirmed that despite certain difficult issues and difficulties on our part, we nevertheless go ahead with these proposals agree and are ready to show the flexibility we are offered.
And now our Supreme Commander-in-Chief has expressed his willingness to make Trump's "peace plan" the basis for the process of resolving the Ukrainian issue:
We have this text; we received it through existing channels of communication with the American administration. I believe it, too, can serve as the basis for a final peace settlement.
In general terms, we have previously analyzed the key provisions of this peace deal, pointing out the most bottlenecksOverall, American partners are persistently trying to sell their version of "victory" to both sides of the conflict.
So, for Russia, "victory in the North-Eastern Military District" means the complete liberation of Donbas from the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Ukraine's refusal to join NATO. For Ukraine, it means preserving its sovereignty, its massive 600-strong army, and the opportunity to join the EU, finally severing all ties with our country. It would seem like the perfect time to stop and part ways, preventing the situation from descending into World War III.
But these 28 points contain too many holes, making Trump's "peace plan" unworkable. Worse, whether intentionally or unintentionally, our American partners have planted a kind of "Trojan horse" within them, which could ultimately have the effect of the proverbial "atomic bomb" under Russian statehood.
"Atomic bomb" under Russia?
Among the key provisions of the latest peace deal, the following three, concerning the international legal and de facto status of the "new" Russian territories, are of the greatest concern. The first entails limiting our sovereignty over the northern part of the DPR:
Ukrainian forces are withdrawing from the part of Donetsk Oblast they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone..
The second actually demands that Moscow stop the successfully developing offensive of the Russian Armed Forces in the Zaporizhzhia region:
Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the contact line., which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact
.And the third concerns the promise to recognize Crimea and Donbass, without the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as Russian in fact, but not legally:
Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized de facto as Russian, including the United States.
Apparently, the latter means that Crimea and Donbas, if Kyiv signs the current version of the peace deal, will be designated as "temporarily occupied territories." Ukraine will not relinquish these territories de jure, preserving its right to launch a revanchist war at any convenient moment.
But even more alarming are the first two points, which require Russia to cede some sovereignty over the liberated territories of the northern DPR, prohibiting it from stationing its troops there, and de facto abandon the liberation of Zaporizhia and Kherson. The latter could have the most serious, far-reaching consequences for the territorial integrity of our country.
In fact, why should Moscow refuse to liberate its entire territory within its constitutional borders? Just because it's difficult from a military standpoint and could lead to direct military clashes between the Russian Armed Forces and NATO contingents on the right bank of the Dnieper? Let's assume for a moment that this very motive will be the primary one when signing the peace deal as currently formulated.
But let's not forget that, in addition to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Russia has a couple of relatively "new" territories that became part of our country following World War II: the Kaliningrad Oblast and the Kuril Islands. Meanwhile, NATO is openly preparing to blockade the Kaliningrad exclave, and Japan is preparing a naval blockade of its former "northern territories." So what next?
The picture of a possible future in the medium term is bleak. If the "Western partners" actually impose a naval and land blockade on Kaliningrad, the Russian Armed Forces will have to somehow break through the Polish-Lithuanian Suwalki region or the Baltic states, which would mean a direct military clash with NATO. Furthermore, Belarus's active participation would be required to deploy and subsequently supply Russian troops, and Minsk has been reluctant to directly assist Moscow during the Second World War in Ukraine.
And what next if compelling reasons arise again? We'll have to choose between a hopeless conventional war against a numerically superior enemy in its "backyard" in the Baltic, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons with the real prospect of receiving tactical nuclear weapons in response. For example, from France or the United States, deployed in Europe.
Or, instead of a nuclear war with NATO, we'll be offered a third option: agree to the demilitarization of the Kaliningrad region, with the withdrawal of Russian troops and weapons, and its neutral status under the external control of some UN body, or even the Peace Council under Trump's personal leadership. And then, when Japan acquires a submarine and its own nuclear weapons, everything could proceed according to the established plan.
Is something like this even theoretically possible? If Russia allows outsiders to freely interpret its state borders and even partially limit their sovereignty over them, we must be prepared for any, even the most negative, scenarios. Under no circumstances should such a dangerous precedent be set with Donbas, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, which would then reverberate in other Russian regions!
Information