By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Linguists have observed the unusual prevalence of specific phrases in the draft peace plan, such as “it is expected,” which closely mirrors the Russian phrase “ozhidayetsya.” The plan, secretly negotiated by President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and a Russian advisor, notably excluded Ukrainian and European officials. Under the controversial proposal, Ukraine would surrender significant territories to Russia and be prohibited from joining NATO, while Russia would regain G8 membership. Furthermore, the plan includes substantial military reductions for Ukraine and the lifting of sanctions against Russia, contingent on future Russian actions.
Read the original article here
Trump’s Ukraine Peace Deal Appears to Be Using Russian Language
The very idea of a “peace deal” regarding Ukraine, being proposed by Donald Trump, is raising eyebrows, especially when the details are examined closely. The consensus seems to be that it’s not a peace deal in the traditional sense, but rather a blueprint that heavily favors Russia, and many suspect the language itself betrays its origins.
The core concern circles around the structure of the proposed agreement. Critics argue it essentially hands over significant portions of Ukraine to Russia, demands limitations on Ukraine’s military and its alliances, and largely achieves the goals Russia initially set out before its full-scale invasion. The immediate reaction from many is that this isn’t a negotiation at all, but a surrender disguised as a peace treaty.
The strongest indicator of Russian influence, according to some, is the language itself. There’s a prevailing suspicion, supported by linguistic analysis, that the document isn’t merely inspired by Russian viewpoints, but may have actually been written in Russian and then translated into English. This isn’t just about the broad strokes of the agreement, but the very phrasing and nuances within it. It’s as though someone copied and pasted a Russian document, and then used a translation tool.
One specific point of concern involves Trump’s repeated use of “The Ukraine” instead of simply “Ukraine,” a formulation that’s more common in Russian. The Russian language uses a definite article, treating Ukraine as a region, not a fully independent nation. This seemingly minor detail is seen as a telltale sign of the source. It implies that Trump’s communication has been filtered through a Russian lens.
Further amplifying these concerns is the lack of any Ukrainian involvement in the negotiations. A genuine peace deal, most agree, would involve direct talks and compromise between Ukraine and Russia. The absence of Ukraine at the table has fueled claims that the process is designed solely to satisfy Russian objectives, regardless of the consequences for the Ukrainian people.
The proposed agreement’s provisions themselves add more fuel to the fire. Some of the suggested terms, such as Ukraine not being allowed to join NATO and reducing its military, are widely seen as capitulations to Russia’s initial demands. Essentially, the deal appears to give Putin what he wanted from the very beginning, something that many consider to be a complete betrayal of Ukrainian sovereignty and interests.
The alleged laziness of the Trump administration also comes into play. If, as the claims suggest, the document was written or heavily influenced by Russia, then the fact that Trump and his team might not have even bothered to rewrite it in their own words is a sign of extreme incompetence and subservience. There are whispers that this could also be out of fear, as it is suggested that Putin has some compromising material on Trump.
The fact that the proposed “peace deal” appears to use Russian language, combined with its pro-Russian stipulations and the absence of Ukrainian participation, leads many to believe that it’s not an honest attempt at peacemaking. Instead, it seems designed to give Russia what it wants, at Ukraine’s expense, and it makes Trump look more like a puppet following orders.