By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to the Polish news outlet Onet, a “favourable” American proposal was presented to Vladimir Putin during talks with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow. The reported proposal, coordinated with European states, included a ceasefire in Ukraine with de facto recognition of occupied territories deferred for several decades, along with the lifting of most sanctions and a return to energy cooperation. The proposal, however, reportedly lacked guarantees against NATO expansion or a cessation of military support for Ukraine. Following this, Trump communicated with both Zelenskyy and European leaders, and a meeting between Trump and Putin was confirmed.
Read the original article here
Polish news outlets publishing President Trump’s proposal to Putin to end the war, well, it immediately raises eyebrows, doesn’t it? The core of the proposal, as it’s been reported, centers around a ceasefire in Ukraine, but it’s far from a straightforward peace deal. It seems the path suggested is more about managing the conflict than truly resolving it.
The central idea of the proposal is a ceasefire, a pause, but not necessarily the end of hostilities. The details that accompany this ceasefire are where things get really interesting, or perhaps, concerning. The plan appears to include a de facto recognition of Russian control over the territories it currently occupies, suggesting the status quo, with the question of ownership deferred for the long term, possibly decades. That’s a lot of ground to give up, and it’s hard to see how Ukraine would be happy to do this.
Furthermore, the proposal reportedly suggests lifting most of the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia. This could pave the way for a return to energy cooperation, specifically the import of Russian oil and gas. Essentially, the deal could put everything back as it was before the invasion, while Russia holds the land they’ve invaded. That seems like a pretty massive reward for aggression.
It’s difficult to avoid the immediate reactions, which range from incredulity to outright anger. The language is strong, bordering on vitriolic. It’s clear that many view this as a deal heavily weighted in Putin’s favor, a surrender disguised as a negotiation. The implication is that Trump is essentially caving to Putin’s demands, rewarding his aggression, and betraying Ukraine’s interests.
The reactions touch upon several key points. There’s skepticism about Trump’s ability to handle foreign policy, with critics pointing out that this plan would set back the United States. The proposal is viewed as a capitulation, with the potential to embolden Russia and undermine any hope for a just and lasting peace. The lifting of sanctions and a return to energy cooperation are seen as especially problematic.
The lack of any guarantees against NATO expansion also fuels the criticism. Russia has consistently voiced its opposition to NATO’s expansion and views it as a threat, and the proposal’s silence on this matter suggests a potential lack of seriousness in addressing Moscow’s core concerns.
Another criticism is the perception that the proposal is primarily about what Putin wants, without regard for Ukraine’s sovereignty or the future of its people. The possibility that Russia would maintain control of occupied territories would be a hard pill to swallow.
There is a strong undercurrent of distrust and cynicism regarding Trump’s motives and abilities. The idea that he would offer Putin everything he wants, and then some, is viewed as a betrayal of American values and strategic interests. Some see this as the culmination of Trump’s reported affinity for Putin and a pattern of undermining efforts to counter Russian aggression.
Many seem to be asking: Why would Ukraine agree to such terms? The answer, from a critical standpoint, is that they wouldn’t. Such a deal would simply allow Russia to regroup and potentially resume its aggression at a later date, with their economy bolstered by the lifting of sanctions.
The fact that European allies were supposedly not involved in these supposed negotiations. This raises questions about the proposal’s legitimacy and practicality. For a lasting peace to be established, it would require the consensus of all parties involved, including Ukraine and its allies. This deal would never see the light of day.
The overall impression is that this proposal, as leaked, is deeply flawed and likely to be rejected. The response is overwhelmingly negative, with a profound lack of trust in its architect. There are clear concerns that it would reward aggression, undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, and ultimately fail to bring about a lasting peace.