By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following negotiations in Switzerland, Ukraine has significantly altered the US peace plan, reducing the initial 28 points to 19 and removing some of Russia’s maximalist demands. Kyiv insists the current frontline should serve as the starting point for territorial discussions and that it retains the right to decide on EU and NATO membership. While US officials have expressed optimism, Moscow indicated the plan requires further revisions, rejecting a European counter-proposal. European leaders emphasize the need for their full involvement and for Russia to participate in talks to achieve a just and lasting peace, while the situation remains volatile amid ongoing attacks.
Read the original article here
Ukraine makes significant changes to US ‘peace plan’, sources say, and the implications of this shift are becoming increasingly clear. The situation is not what it seems, and the modifications are likely to be a catalyst for further conflict. What was initially presented as a potential pathway to resolution has, in reality, become another exercise in geopolitical gamesmanship.
It seems the “peace plan” was, in essence, Russia’s plan all along. As any student of international affairs knows, Russia has a history of making proposals it knows will be rejected, giving them the ability to posture and blame their adversaries while simultaneously making subsequent offers that seem more reasonable by comparison. This strategic maneuvering is a well-worn tactic, and it’s playing out now.
The core of the issue, as understood, revolves around the true intent. The belief is that Russia would reject any plan regardless of its details, using it as a reason to say “no deal then.” The supposed “US peace plan” was essentially designed to fail, as a way to gain leverage, buy time, and potentially sow division among Ukraine’s allies. It’s not about achieving a settlement, it’s about control.
The “peace plan,” as modified, appears to have been stripped down to its bare essentials, essentially demanding Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. In a world of diplomacy, this stance is understandable. However, given the context, it highlights the fundamental disagreement on the table.
This leads to the question of what the ultimate goal is. The idea of a meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump, for instance, raises concerns. The concern is that Trump’s understanding of the conflict is shallow and that his focus is primarily on personal prestige, which would ultimately be counterproductive.
The strategy that seems to be unfolding is to muddy the waters, delay support for Ukraine, and make the West embroiled in useless arguments and inaction. Russia is using the “peace plan” as a tool, a means of creating chaos and confusion. Russia is not interested in peace, they are interested in complete victory.
Furthermore, there’s talk of economic instability within Russia itself. Reports suggest they are selling gold reserves to finance their budget. This move isn’t necessarily a sign of impending collapse, as other countries have done the same. However, it’s a telling indicator of the pressures they face. They may be able to sustain it for a time, but this will eventually catch up with them.
In the end, it underscores the need for a realistic assessment of the situation. It’s important to see through the propaganda and understand the true motivations. The path to peace, if there is one, will not be achieved through cosmetic changes, but through a genuine commitment to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.