The history of diplomacy is full of strangeness. Touch the surface of the dusty books and peculiar characters spring forth to demand that their tales be heard. And yet the American diplomacy of the past few days, I believe, will stand out as something peculiarly gruesome — not simply incompetent, but openly courting national and global catastrophe.
A document suddenly appeared a few days ago under the inapplicable (and too-frequently enough repeated) heading of “peace plan” regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war. It would be more accurately described as a plan to intensify the war to the profit of a few Russians and Americans. It seems to have produced entirely or mostly by Russians, and then leaked by a Russian negotiator to an American outlet. It was then claimed by a fraction within the White House, endorsed (sight unseen) by the president of the United States, who insisted (at least at first) that Ukraine had to accept it.
Since then there have been many denials, denials of denials, and obfuscations. the scandal will perhaps clarify problems of process in Washington. It is indeed not that we — America — are trying to sell out Ukraine. American public opinion is favorable to Ukraine. Republican voters support Ukraine. A majority in Congress supports Ukraine. It is indeed rather that a few Russians and a few Americans have the ability to define as a “peace plan” what is essentially the furtherance of personal economic interests combined with a strengthening of Russia’s capacity for warfighting and a weakening of Ukraine’s.along the way, it contradicts every major principle of international law and furthers a world dominated by China and its Russian ally.
This suggests the absence of American statecraft.
it looks a lot like (details below) that Russians are seeking to bribe Americans to allow Russia to win a war it would or else lose. Having allowed Russians in this instance to design our policy, we then rely on our European and Ukrainian allies to serve as a check on us. We (or rather some powerful Americans) scold them for doing what they have to do, not only in their own interests but in ours and in the interest of avoiding general disaster.
So much for procedure.
This document that begins in a Russian unreality. Rather than summarizing what has actually happened, a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the authors work rather to communicate the implicit premises that the war was caused by the West, and that Ukraine is not actually a real country. Its total silence on the basic facts of the Russian invasion leads to the conclusion that Russia should be celebrated and rewarded — as should specific American individuals.
In this text, there is no history, except that of Russian grievance. there is no law, except that as might be invoked to enable commercial transactions that enrich Russians (and a few Americans). There is no war itself. There is no discussion of anything that Russia would do to end its invasion. A purported peace plan applies itself at no point to the invader or the invader’s actions. By removing the war itself from consideration,Russians can claim huge gains while continuing to fight for yet more — against a ukraine that is weakened by the “peace plan.”
While everything is demanded of Ukraine, nothing is asked of Russia. This is a capitulation document written by the aggressor and served to the victim, at a time when the aggressor is not doing well on the battlefield. Indeed, it is only through a document such s this one, harnessing the power of the United States for Russian purposes, that Russia could possibly achieve its own announced purposes. By leaping right to the idea that Russia should be rewarded rather than punished, the document executes a very typical Russian maneuver: crime for Russians without punishment, and punishment for others without crime.
One way to criticize the text is to imagine that it is intended as a peace settlement and then note some shortcomings. But this is to normalize a document that obviously has other purposes than peace: namely, imperialism and profiteering. The fundamental problem of this text is its deliberate and characteristically Russian unreality.
And Russia had every prospect for dialog in the years before it invaded Ukraine in 2014, after that invasion, and even after the invasion of 2022. The purpose of this point is to imply that the United States and Russia can themselves decide all issues in Europe.
[Image of Zaporizhzhi, Ukraine, under Russian bombing, March 2024]
5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.
This is obviously meaningless. A security guarantee is reliable in practice, not on paper.In this particular situation, this would mean institutional and military action that would undo the current Russian occupation and prevent a further one. Nothing like this is specified in this document; and we will see that the drift of all that follows is in the opposite direction: to make current and future Russian military action easier. Note again also the use of the passive voice: nothing will be done, and we don’t even know by whom nothing will be done.
6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
Any sovereign country can determine the size of its own armed forces. this point is an obvious and direct violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, and reveals (again) that point one is just there essentially for mesmeric purposes: the empty claim at the top that Ukrainian sovereignty “will be confirmed” is meant to prevent the reader from noticing that the entire document is a diktat directed at Ukraine, which of course was not consulted in its framing.
And note that there is no limit on the size of Russian armed forces.
7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.
A bit of recent history might be useful here before we get to the obvious point that this, too, violates Ukrainian sovereignty.NATO was not popular in Ukraine until Russia invaded in 2014. After that point, NATO understandably became appealing. It became more popular after Russia undertook the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Simply put, NATO was never an issue until Russia made it one.
Something similar can be said about Sweden and Finland, which joined NATO be
Rebuilding Ukraine and Reintegrating Russia: A Critical Analysis of Proposed Measures
12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to: the creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities. Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas. Infrastructure development. Extraction of minerals and natural resources. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
These undertakings are being promised by one country (Russia) that has destroyed much of Ukraine, and by another (the United States) that has destroyed the institutions of its own government that would implement any such policies. This strongly suggests a reliance on private actors, which isn’t inherently negative, as the rebuilding of Ukraine will naturally involve the private sector alongside cooperation with central and regional governments, and civil society. However, this document appears driven more by particular American investors than the American government itself, raising concerns that will be amplified in the following points.
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy: The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis. The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
It’s troubling that those involved in drafting this document seem more focused on potential profits with Russia than on the core issues of peacemaking. From the Russian side, the omission of war reparations is a dramatic avoidance of a fundamental issue. Russia has inflicted hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in damage during an unlawful war, aside from the immeasurable cost of human life and injury.
14. Frozen funds will be used as follows: $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine; The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.
We’ve reached a point where Russia is being rewarded for its invasion, with no mention of ending the war or preventing future aggression. Russian assets were frozen due to a criminal war, yet this document lacks any concrete steps to stop the conflict.There’s no discussion of Russian troop withdrawals, dispositions, weapons, or meaningful behavioral changes. Instead, we see Russian assets being unfrozen and a portion directed to Americans – funds largely held in European banks.
This arrangement resembles a bribe: Russia receives money frozen due to its crimes, aided by American intervention, in exchange for funds and potentially a victory in its war against Ukraine that it couldn’t have achieved alone. This point strongly suggests a quid-pro-quo where Ukraine is being sold out by a select few American individuals.
15. A joint American-Russian work…
A Critical Analysis of Proposed Peace Terms: Point-by-Point Concerns
This document, purportedly outlining peace terms, is deeply troubling and demonstrably biased in favor of Russia. It rewards aggression, undermines international law, and exhibits a disturbing disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty and cultural identity. A detailed examination reveals a pattern of manipulative phrasing and unacceptable concessions.
Cultural and ideological Concerns (Points 19 & 20):
The stipulations regarding language and education are notably alarming. The demand for “protection of all Russian-speaking citizens” is a pretext historically used to justify Russian intervention.The claim of “Nazi ideology” within Ukraine is a baseless fabrication employed by Russia to legitimize its destructive actions. This narrative ignores the reality of Ukraine as a democratic nation led by a Jewish president, while concurrently overlooking Russia’s own flirtations with fascist ideologies. The systematic suppression of Ukrainian culture – the removal of Ukrainian language and history from education, the active destruction of cultural artifacts – is a brutal reality not addressed by these terms. The focus on “discriminatory measures” appears to be a veiled attempt to force Ukraine to allow Russian propaganda within its borders.
Territorial Concessions (Point 21):
This point represents a fundamental betrayal of international law. Recognizing Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as “de facto Russian” – and freezing the conflict in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – rewards Russia for its illegal annexation and ongoing aggression. the concept of “de facto” recognition is deliberately obfuscated, attempting to normalize occupation and erode Ukraine’s legal claim to its territory. The demand for Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of Donetsk Oblast, land they currently control and Russia has failed to conquer, further weakens ukraine’s defensive position and leaves it vulnerable to future invasion. The vague reference to “other agreed territories” is meaningless without specific details.
Non-Aggression Clause & River Access (Points 22 & 23):
The non-aggression clause appears to allow Russia to continue its war until it achieves its desired territorial gains, then bind Ukraine to accept the outcome. The phrasing regarding the Dnieper River (spelled Dnipro in English,deliberately rendered in Russian here) is misleading. Ukraine already has the right to use its own waterways; the phrasing implies Russia has a say in the matter, which is unacceptable. The agreement on grain transport, while seemingly positive, is framed as a concession from Russia, rather than a restoration of normal trade practices.
In essence, this document does not represent a path to peace, but rather a blueprint for the continued subjugation of Ukraine. It is indeed a deeply flawed and unjust proposal that should be unequivocally rejected.
Analysis of Proposed Peace Agreement: A Flawed and Unrealistic Proposal
This analysis examines a recently proposed memorandum for a peace agreement, as detailed in a post by Timothy Snyder on his Substack, “Russian unreality and American Weakness.” The document, reportedly drafted without the participation of key stakeholders like Ukraine and European nations, is riddled with legal, procedural, and practical flaws, rendering it unsuitable as a framework for genuine peace negotiations.
Key Concerns & violations of International law
The proposed agreement, as outlined by Snyder, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of international law and diplomatic procedure. Several critical issues undermine its viability:
* Ignoring Existing Legal Frameworks: The agreement blatantly disregards “dozens of laws and treaties already in force.” The specific treaties violated are detailed in a link provided by Snyder (https://x.com/eeriknkross/status/1992268902068261261?s=42). This disregard for established international legal norms is a significant obstacle to its legitimacy.
* Illegitimate Authority for Amnesty: The document suggests that Russians and Americans could grant amnesty for international crimes. This is a clear violation of international law, as neither nation possesses the authority to pardon individuals for crimes under international jurisdiction. International criminal law, as enforced by bodies like the International Criminal Court, operates independently of national amnesties.
* Non-existent “Peace Council”: The proposed implementation and monitoring of the agreement would be overseen by a “Peace Council” headed by former President Donald Trump. This council does not exist, and the idea of a single individual permanently leading such an organization is structurally unsound.
* Lack of Defined Parties & ceasefire Context: The memorandum fails to identify the parties involved in the agreement and lacks any prior mention of a ceasefire. The proposed implementation hinges on a ceasefire and retreat to “agreed points,” yet the agreement doesn’t establish how this ceasefire would come into effect or what those points would be.
* Exclusion of Key stakeholders: Critically, Ukraine and European nations were excluded from the drafting process. Any viable peace agreement must include the active participation of all affected parties, particularly Ukraine, as the nation directly impacted by the conflict.
Procedural and motivating Concerns
snyder suggests the agreement’s origins stem from a desire by some Americans to secure a “quick deal” and garner credit for a presidential figure. This motivation, he argues, led to a delegation of the drafting process to Russian representatives, resulting in a document heavily influenced by Russian interests. This raises serious concerns about the impartiality and legitimacy of the proposal.
Current Diplomatic Efforts
As of the writing of Snyder’s analysis, discussions involving European, Ukrainian, and American representatives are underway in Geneva. It is crucial to understand that the proposed memorandum should not be considered a legitimate framework for a peace settlement, despite potential attempts to present it as such for diplomatic purposes.
Conclusion
The proposed memorandum is fundamentally flawed,legally unsound,and practically unrealistic. It represents a perilous approach to peacemaking, prioritizing expediency and personal gain over established legal principles and the genuine needs of all stakeholders.While it may serve as a cautionary tale, it cannot be viewed as a viable path towards a lasting peace.
Source:
Snyder, Timothy. “Russian Unreality and American Weakness.” Snyder, 22 Nov. 2023, https://snyder.substack.com/p/russian-unreality-and-american-weakness?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&action=share.