Is fighting in Ukraine nearing the end?

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have traveled to Russia to present the final version of a 28-point “peace plan” to Putin after talks with the Ukrainian side. The plan, which the Trump administration has given Zelensky until Thanksgiving to consider, will be submitted to Moscow in a revised form following weekend meetings in Florida with Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov. It’s impossible to know what fundamental changes were made to address Ukraine’s concerns, but statements from Zelensky suggest he has been forced into serious concessions. Faced with pressure from Washington and unwilling to appear as the intransigent party, Ukraine seems aware that it is at a critical juncture due to corruption scandals and escalating Russian attacks. If Putin insists on maximalist demands, Ukraine might buy some time, but the American side’s increasingly transactional approach risks pushing sovereignty-related issues into the background.

AMERICA’S MOTIVE

I previously wrote that the 28-point peace plan leaked to the press by the American side amounted to a near-capitulation document and that its timing aligned with Trump’s political promises and electoral calendar. A recent Wall Street Journal analysis noted that Putin had spoken to the Trump administration about the economic opportunities that would emerge if the war ended—and that this message resonated in Washington. In Witkoff’s secret negotiations with Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, the idea that the U.S. and Russia could collaborate on multiple economic projects emerged as a driving force behind the push for a Ukraine deal. Reports suggest there was talk of channeling Russia’s €300 billion in frozen European assets into joint U.S.–Russia investment ventures and allowing American firms to use these funds for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Discussions even touched on cooperation ranging from exploiting Arctic mineral resources to Elon Musk’s Mars-colonization projects.

The Journal’s reporting paints a picture entirely consistent with how the Trump administration has approached policymaking—domestically and internationally—over the past year. Washington has been operating with an outlook that prioritizes the business interests of American companies and figures close to Trump. It’s no surprise, then, that the U.S. would take an “America first” approach to Ukraine. Everything from Europe’s security to the durability of a Ukraine peace or NATO membership risks becoming secondary once American interests come first. Under Trump’s America-first ideology, creating business opportunities and generating wealth for the U.S. trumps concepts like Ukraine’s national sovereignty or dignity. This picture also shows that while the U.S. may not completely abandon the core norms of the international system, it is clearly prepared to give substantial concessions. Principles such as opposing border changes through aggression or defending national sovereignty simply don’t carry much weight for a leadership that prioritizes corporate interests.

UKRAINE’S OPTIONS

Washington’s effective withdrawal of support, combined with Trump hosting Putin in Alaska and thereby legitimizing him, signaled to Ukraine that it was approaching the end of the road. With no European leadership strong enough to counterbalance U.S. pressure, Zelensky is left with few options. Softening the most extreme provisions of the 28-point plan—which essentially declare a Russian victory—may allow Zelensky to claim he didn’t sign a capitulation, but the core elements appear unchanged: confirmation of territorial losses, the end of NATO aspirations, and limits on the size of Ukraine’s military. The consolidation of Russia’s conquest of eastern Ukraine under the guise of “territorial swaps” is far from palatable, yet Kyiv seems to have little room to maneuver.

That the U.S. has shifted within a year from a government promising to support Ukraine “to the end” to one willing to accept nearly all of Russia’s conditions for commercial gain sends a powerful message to major actors in the international system. Despite suffering massive losses and economic damage, Russia’s ability to continue the war appears to have outlasted the willingness of a U.S. administration driven by business priorities to sustain the fight. While Ukraine has shown it is willing to keep fighting on the basis of the values and principles Washington once claimed to uphold, it simply lacks the capacity. The combination of America stepping back and Europe failing to fill the void forms the core of Ukraine’s tragedy. If Kyiv refuses the “peace” plan, it risks losing both the U.S. and, indirectly, Europe—leaving it with little choice but to accept a revised “reasonable” deal.

Forcing Ukraine into a de facto surrender in order to prioritize American interests will likely heighten global instability and unpredictability. Having consolidated its current gains, Moscow may well resume its offensive in a few years and attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. Alternatively, elections foreseen in the peace plan could bring a pro-Russia government to power in Kyiv, ensuring the country’s drift away from Europe. Even the credibility of any security guarantees offered to Ukraine is highly doubtful—Washington’s constant shifts leave those guarantees hollow. For Ukraine, the only path out of this grim scenario may be to accept the imposed settlement labeled as “peace” and immediately begin rebuilding its national capacity so it is no longer dependent on U.S. and European support and guarantees.