By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A leaked peace proposal drafted by the US and Russia shows evidence of having been influenced by Russian language. Journalist Luke Harding pointed out that the passive construction “it is expected” in the third clause, along with other word choices like “ambiguities” and “enshrine,” sound more natural when translated directly from Russian. Furthermore, the use of “the new territory” to describe occupied regions of Ukraine also supports this claim. The settlement, which was reportedly drafted in secret talks, has been met with criticism from Kyiv and its allies, who view it as a concession to Moscow’s demands.
Read the original article here
US-Russia Peace Proposal Could Have Been ‘Originally Written in Russian,’ Journalist Says, and the immediate thought that comes to mind is the sheer potential for a colossal misstep. If the insinuation holds true – that a peace plan supposedly crafted by the US could be, in essence, a Russian-authored document – then the failure of leadership is staggering. It raises the uncomfortable question of whose interests are truly being served, and it paints a picture of incompetence, naivete, or something far more sinister. The idea that a supposed American proposal simply parrots Russian talking points is, frankly, chilling.
It’s easy to imagine a scenario, almost comedic in its audacity, where Trump, in his characteristic style, enthusiastically presents a plan that is essentially a regurgitation of Putin’s pre-existing demands. The scenario, complete with Putin’s predictable approval, highlights the potential for the situation to become farcical. The consequences, however, are anything but. The war wouldn’t magically end, but the implication of an unequal playing field raises immediate concern.
We should acknowledge the core issues. Any so-called peace plan that hinges on Ukraine being denied NATO membership, and on a lack of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, is fundamentally a concession to Russian desires. These are the kinds of conditions that could have been written in Moscow, not Washington. This immediately sets a tone that favors Russia, putting Ukraine on the back foot from the outset.
The notion of a security guarantee is paramount, and it’s something that demands our utmost attention. Zelenskyy needs something concrete – a legally binding NATO security guarantee – to prevent future aggression. “Security assurances,” the kind that are presently in place, lack the necessary weight and power to deter Russia. They’re essentially meaningless in the face of a determined aggressor. This is the difference between a promise and a commitment backed by the full weight of international law and collective defense.
The underlying implications also can’t be ignored. The alleged coziness between certain individuals and dictators, like the reference to the meeting with Bonesaw, raises questions of personal and political motivations. It suggests a willingness to appease rather than confront, to prioritize personal relationships over national security. This can lead to a situation where the proposal may be more about personal gain and flattery than a genuine quest for peace.
The suggestion that the plan wasn’t properly vetted, that it bypassed standard diplomatic protocols and teams, adds another layer of concern. A real diplomat would have immediately identified and addressed the numerous roadblocks to the plan’s success. Any proposal involving NATO expansion would be immediately torpedoed by some member states. A proper peace plan must take into account these political realities, and any failure to do so demonstrates either profound ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the situation.
It’s crucial to recognize the potential for a peace plan crafted in bad faith. If a plan is designed to be ineffective from the outset, if it’s based on unrealistic demands and ignores the legitimate security concerns of the involved parties, it’s not a peace plan at all. It’s a delaying tactic, a way to buy time while the aggressor re-arms and prepares for the next round of conflict. The potential for such a plan is far too great.
The contrast between the pre-Trump era and the current dynamic is glaring. The suggestion that Trump’s leadership is somehow an extension of Russian influence further amplifies the need for skepticism and caution. The idea that the US before Trump never aligned with the Russians prior to MAGA is an undeniable change in the status quo. It paints a picture of a nation that has abandoned its principles.
Finally, we should not overlook the statements from US Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, as it shows some bipartisan support. It is important to note the voices of dissent and those who recognize the need to reject the proposals entirely. This shows that there are those still willing to stand up and call out the absurdity of the situation. They recognize that there is an overwhelming need for Putin to withdraw his forces, regardless of any proposed “peace” plans that only serve Russian interests.