Photo credit: Shutterstock
Donald Trump’s 28-point Ukraine “peace” proposal is less a genuine ceasefire plan than a punitive diktat imposed on the victim of aggression. It is a new Treaty of Versailles, but one forced on Ukraine despite its status as an invaded democracy, while the aggressor Russia is effectively rewarded.
The plan reflects a broader “America First” moral void approach to diplomacy, in which war and peace are treated as transactional business deals rather than questions of justice, and allies can be sacrificed for short-term political gain and profit. This proposed deal is a threat to NATO and Western unity, undermining the alliance’s principles and treating it as something the US can bargain away unilaterally.
The plan effectively forces Ukraine to accept defeat in all but name. Kyiv would need to cede more sovereign territory than Russia currently occupies, legitimising Russia’s land acquisitions in Crimea and the Donbas, and even relinquishing parts of Donetsk still under Ukrainian control to establish a “neutral” buffer zone that favours Russia. The plan also requires a significant reduction of Ukraine’s armed forces and bans certain weapons, limiting the victim’s ability to defend itself as if it were the aggressor.
Furthermore, Ukraine would be pressured to amend its constitution and internal policies: recognising Russian as an official language, granting the Russian Orthodox Church special status, and explicitly outlawing “Nazi ideology,” which echoes Kremlin propaganda portraying Ukraine as fascist. Collectively, these conditions are presented as a humiliating “war guilt” regime imposed on a country whose only “crime” was resisting invasion.
The plan further stresses Ukraine’s permanent neutrality as if it were somehow a threat to Russia rather than a victim of Kremlin revanchism. Ukraine would need to enshrine a ban on NATO membership in its constitution, while NATO itself would formally close its open door not only to Ukraine but also, effectively, to further expansion. This would embed Russia’s veto over Ukraine’s security choices and undermine a fundamental principle of the post-Cold War order: that sovereign states freely choose their alliances. This would force President Zelenskyy into a humiliating U-turn on his refusal to exchange territory or Euro-Atlantic aspirations for peace.
Just as Versailles bred resentment in Germany, imposing such terms on Ukraine would almost certainly sow bitterness, rearmament, and future conflict rather than lasting stability.
The plan exploits Ukraine’s suffering to generate economic benefits for the United States. Security guarantees are offered as a paid service: the US would provide some form of protection only in exchange for “compensation,” turning collective defence into a kind of protection racket. A substantial reconstruction scheme using frozen Russian assets and European contributions is heavily skewed in favour of US profits, with Washington claiming half the earnings from investments in Ukraine’s recovery.
This establishes a reconstruction cartel where American companies dominate rebuilding, energy, and resource projects – Ukraine endures destruction; the US reaps the rewards. Additionally, a separate US–Russia investment vehicle would utilise remaining Russian funds to establish joint ventures in energy, mining, AI, and more, effectively offering Moscow a lucrative post-war partnership with the American economy. This marks an astonishing reward for Kremlin aggression.
These economic factors are connected to Trump’s longstanding complaints about “paying too much” for allies. The plan secretly justifies reducing US military and financial aid to Ukraine by promoting a settlement that lowers Kyiv’s reliance on Western weapons. For Trump, this is a way to claim he “ended the war” and saved US money, even if it means Ukraine’s sovereignty suffers. Reports that Washington threatened to cut off intelligence and arms to pressure Kyiv into accepting the plan amount to outright coercion. This is not peace-making. It is monetising security and turning America from an arsenal of democracy into an auctioneer of peace.
On Russia’s side, the plan aims for a near-total victory. It consolidates Russia’s territorial gains by recognising its control over Crimea and the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, and stabilises lines of control elsewhere in ways that favour Moscow. Russia would also see sanctions lifted gradually, regain a seat at the G8, and be officially welcomed back into global economic and political frameworks.
Appallingly, the plan grants sweeping amnesties for all “parties,” which in practice means Russian leaders and soldiers escape accountability for war crimes in places like Bucha and Mariupol. This amnesty is morally shocking. It erases years of efforts to document atrocities and destroys any hope of justice for victims, all in the name of Trump’s art of the deal.
The supposed enforcement mechanisms are weak and unbalanced. If Russia re-invades, there would be a promised “decisive coordinated military response” and the re-imposition of sanctions, but with no clear, automatic US defence commitment. Conversely, if Ukraine attempted to retake its lost territories by force, its security guarantees would be void. This moral equivalence, treating victim and aggressor as equally capable of violating the deal, is another way the plan distorts justice. The net effect is that Russia gains legitimacy, relief, and long-term benefits in exchange for little more than a paper promise not to misbehave.
We must recall the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, when Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal for security assurances that failed spectacularly in 2014 and 2022. The new guarantees are equally vague: essentially statements of concern and consultation if Ukraine is attacked, rather than concrete treaty obligations like NATO’s Article 5.
Ukrainians, having already seen such promises collapse, are rightly sceptical. These guarantees are full of conditions and escape clauses and can be revoked if Ukraine is deemed to have misstepped, making them politically fragile and strategically unreliable.
The plan’s diplomatic process also undermines NATO and sidelines allies. European governments and Kyiv have been blindsided by a US–Russia negotiation that treated them as afterthoughts. European leaders’ reported fury and public insistence that “peace cannot be a capitulation” are signs of a deepening rift within the West. By agreeing to halt NATO’s expansion and forbidding any NATO troops in Ukraine, Washington would be unilaterally rewriting alliance policy to suit Moscow, and undercutting European ideas for future security missions in Ukraine. This fits with Trump’s long-standing hostility to NATO and willingness to treat it as a disposable asset rather than a community of shared security.
Trump’s style of “peace-making” is pure theatre: dramatic multi-point plans, grand announcements, and UN resolutions, followed by little interest in long-term enforcement or reconciliation. Trump seeks quick, camera-ready wins to boast that he “stopped the war,” while leaving unresolved grievances that could easily reignite conflict. Coercive tactics, such as leveraging US aid and diplomatic pressure, are central to pushing weaker parties into signing. The result is an agreement lacking local legitimacy and moral grounding, which history suggests will be prone to collapse.
Trump’s 28-point plan is morally bankrupt, strategically reckless, and historically ignorant. By rewarding aggression, erasing accountability, and forcing the victim to capitulate, it undermines international law and the principle that borders cannot be altered by force. By sidelining NATO and dividing the West, it weakens deterrence against future authoritarian aggression. By turning war into an opportunity for profit and self-promotion, it diminishes America’s role as a leader of the democratic world.
Like Versailles and Munich, such a settlement would not bring lasting peace but instead sow the seeds of future conflict.
Fortunately, signs of resistance are already appearing. Ukraine and many European governments have openly rejected any settlement that demands punishing concessions from Kyiv or abandons fundamental principles of justice and sovereignty. Zelenskyy has stated that any plan is just a starting point and must be deeply reshaped to be acceptable.
The free world must insist on a fair peace that does not reward aggression and must refuse to accept a deal that offers only a short-term halt in fighting at the cost of long-term instability and the betrayal of democratic values. This is what a rotting superpower looks like: a Trump White House so morally bankrupt that America abandons the free world.
- Major (Ret.) Andrew Fox is an Associate Research Fellow at The Henry Jackson Society
