BEN MORGAN: A week of confused diplomacy, but is peace any closer?

A week is a long time in war, and last week the situation in Ukraine developed unexpectedly, after the leak of a Russo-American 28-point peace plan. A proposal that although heavily criticised is driving the week’s diplomatic and media cycles. 

When the plan became public, President Trump reacted, imposing a deadline for Ukraine to respond. Currently, a new peace proposal that includes input from Ukraine and European powers is ‘on the table,’ and is reportedly being reviewed by Russia.  On Wednesday, the BBC reported that “For his part, Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, who had looked and sounded grim over the weekend, said there were now “many prospects that can make the path to peace real.”  Although there is a sense of optimism about the US and Ukraine agreeing a proposal, the test will be whether Russia parleys. 

Meanwhile, on Ukraine’s eastern frontier Pokrovsk’s defenders are holding on by the ‘skin of their teeth,’ despite facing enormous odds. Russia throwing everything it has into the battle to win a victory that it hopes will influence this negotion. 

A surprise peace proposal, made in America but written in Russia?

The Russo-American peace proposal was leaked by Axios news service, and came as a shock to most observers.  The initial proposal was very favourable to Russia, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation summed the situation up as follows “That’s because the plan — while being attributed to the US — was almost entirely what Putin had been seeking since before the invasion, only with a sense of being even less conciliatory than previously was the case.”

Now with a proposal ‘on the table’ there was a flurry of diplomatic activity, European powers and Ukraine responded. Trump’s deadline of 27 November for Ukraine to agree terms or face consequences increased the sense of urgency as the parties raced to respond to the proposal.  

In summary, the first proposal essentially restated previous Russian positions including:

• A ceasefire, roughly along the current frontline.
• However, Russia will take control of the remainder of Donetsk. Although controlled by Russia this area would become a de-militarised zone. A notable point is that this area includes the ‘Fortress Belt’ of fortified cities; Kostyantynivka, Druzhkivka, Sloviansk and Kramatorsk that protects Ukraine from an attack from the east.   
• Crimea and the Donbas are recognised as Russian territory, at least by the US.
• Ukraine’s military would be reduced to approx. half its current size around 600,000 soldiers. This is larger than its pre-war military but still not a match for Russia. 
• The US and Europe would provide some form of security guarantee but there would not be any deployment of their forces in Ukraine, either as a security force or for peace keeping.
• Ukraine cannot get NATO membership.

Notably, the document was poor quality both in terms of content and its drafting. Its release indicates a lack of capability and disorganisation in the White House. The author of the proposal, Witkoff, worked with Kirill Dmitriev Putin’s representative and had essentially listed Russian demands.  If agreed too, the proposal would have amounted to a Ukrainian capitulation.  

It appears that Witkoff did not mediate Russia’s demands before recording them. The proposal also indicated he is probably heavily influenced by Russian propaganda. This is consistent with Witkoff’s historic position that could be summarised as follows – Russia’s victory is inevitable so Ukraine should acquiesce to the terms laid down.  

An unrealistic position to start negotiations from when the proposal’s key points have already been canvassed in previous negotiations so Ukraine and Europe’s response is easy to predict.  And when Ukraine is far from losing the war. 

Alongside the content, the proposal is also notable for how poorly it is crafted. Game theorist and commentator, Willian Spaniel says ‘’the document read like it was written by a bunch of amateurs” in a recent podcast, and retired director of the Royal United Services Institute Dr Michael Clarke also described the proposal as “really amateur.” 

Notably, some observers including Russian speaking Danish naval intelligence officer Anders Puck Nielsen, point out that the syntax and language of the document suggest it is derived from a Russian original source. Observations that indicate a poor standard of proofing and translation.

Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State responds to Witkoff’s proposal

The situation developed further on Saturday when US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio spoke to US Senators at the Halifax Security Conference.  The Kyiv Independent reported that “According to Republican Senator Mike Rounds, Rubio told senators that the 28-point peace plan drawn up by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, was actually a Russian plan that the U.S. had agreed to pass along to Ukraine.”  

Later, Politico reported that Rubio’s call led to those Senators making public statements that said “Secretary of State Marco Rubio assured them the document does not represent the Trump administration’s position.”  Rubio’s discussion with the senators obviously upset people in the White House because on Sunday he tweeted “The peace proposal was authored by the US. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.” A tweet clearly designed to reset public speculation about conflict over the plan, within the White House.

Serious planning leads to a proposal agreed with Ukraine 

On Sunday, in Switzerland Rubio, Witkoff and the US Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll met with President Zelenskyy’s Chief of Staff, Andriy Yermak and started a serious planning process. 

The meeting’s outcome was a revised 19-point plan. The details of which are not public but that probably include:

• A ceasefire that includes Ukraine’s retention of the ‘Fortress Belt.’
• No legal recognition of land taken from Ukraine by Russia. 
• Ukraine retaining the right to make its own decisions about joining the European Union or NATO.
• Comprehensive security guarantees. 

After being caught by surprise, several European leaders reviewed the proposal and provided their own feedback.  Reuters released the response, developed by the UK, Germany and France.  The document is a direct response that addresses the original proposal in a point-by-point manner. The key differences are that:

• Ukraine retains control of Donetsk including the ‘Fortress Belt’ cities. 
• That it does not rule out NATO membership.
•  It includes an enhanced security guarantee, based on NATO’s Article 5 provisions.  

However, we must be careful not to read too much into this activity because regardless of how it is reported this proposal is not mandated by NATO or by the European Union. Additionally, we cannot be certain how much influence this work had on Rubio’s 19-point proposal. 

The current situation

Now, on 27 November, the new 19-point proposal is agreed between the US and Ukraine and is being reviewed by Russia.  No official comment has been made by Russian officials. Although the BBC reports there are “discontented mutterings about European involvement and unauthorised leaks” and that “President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said it was “premature” to think that a deal was close.”

Next week, Witkoff is due to visit Moscow and there are rumours that Zelenskyy will visit the White House, and with Christmas approaching it is unlikely that the pace of the negotiations will slow down. 

What does this activity tell us?

Unfortunately, the most notable feature of this activity is that it indicates that the White House is disorganised and not operating as a unified team.  The leaking of the document, its poor crafting and Rubio’s response all indicate that the White House is not operating as a well-oiled and effective team.

Producing a well-written document should be an easy task because the White House is probably the most well-supported political administration on Earth. But more concerning is the picture painted by the lack of coordination between Witkoff and Rubio. 

Rubio appeared surprised by the first Russo-American proposal.  A proposal that was poorly thought through and presented as a document written by inexperienced diplomats.  For example, there is little point in proposing Ukraine surrender the Donetsk ‘Fortress Belt.’ A chain of cities that secures Ukraine’s heartland against any attack from the east, and that Ukraine would never surrender.  

Trump’s reaction, setting a deadline for Ukraine to agree terms, added un-necessary tension and risk.  Probably, he was keen to get a ‘quick win’ after the proposal was leaked but operating in this manner could easily backfire because the US probably does not have the diplomatic leverage to force Ukraine to agree. 

Since taking office Trump has steadily reduced American support for Ukraine. A policy that results in it being easier for Europe and Ukraine to ‘walk away’ if a deal does not work.  In simple terms, the US has less diplomatic leverage over the situation than it had last year.   

For example, Trump stopped US weapons being sent to Ukraine. Currently, the only US weapons supplied to Ukraine are those purchased from the US by European countries through the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL).  A NATO programme for European countries to procure American weapons for Ukraine, that the US makes a profit from. If Trump stops the programme there will be an immediate economic impact on American businesses.  

Another form of US leverage could be to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine.  However, the US has taken this action before and although a blow for Ukraine, history demonstrates it is unlikely to stop the fighting. In fact, the previous intelligence embargo forced Ukraine and its supporters to adapt and prepare for similar situations. So if the US stops providing intelligence Ukraine will be better prepared, and the US loses access to the rich trove of intelligence that Ukraine is collecting.

Rubio is an experienced diplomat and as Secretary of State is probably well aware of the limits of US leverage over Ukraine and of the wider geo-political implications of any proposal. He should have been involved in drafting and approving this type of document but the release appeared to catch him by surprise, and there is plenty of media speculation about internal politics within the White House.  I do not intend to speculate about the White House’s internal politics other than to observe that the last week’s activity provides proof that the administration is not working as well as it should. 

However, Rubio and his counterparts now appear to have carefully and constructively mitigated these risks and written a plan that Ukraine can support. The next hurdle is getting Russia to agree. 

My assessment is that Putin is very unlikely to accept the proposal, and that instead he will stall until Pokrovsk is captured. The fall of Pokrovsk is important because it reinforces Putin’s narratives about inevitable Russian victory that may increase his leverage in the negotiation. And that narrative is an essential element of his negotiating position, that to-date it has worked well. Therefore, I believe there will be no firm Russian response until Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad are in Russia hands.  A good example of how a tactical-level battle can influence a strategic-level engagement.

An update on Pokrovsk 

My last post finished with the question – Can Ukraine hold Pokrovsk until winter weather settles in and reduces both sides ability to fight?  

And that question is still being debated, even though it appears that Russia is edging closer to capturing the town. The Russians are advancing from two directions; 51st Combined Arms Army (CAA) from the north, and 2nd (CAA) from the south. Recently, fog allowed more movement and Russia took advantage of the bad weather to infiltrate troops into Pokrovsk’s urban area.  Currently, there are social media reports that Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps is starting to withdraw north from the area.

The fighting in Pokrovsk is confused and the battle is complex. Reporting in a variety of sources indicates that Russian forces control the town south of the Donetska Railway that bisects the town. The railway line creates a natural defensive barrier that Ukrainian soldiers are using to try and stop the Russian advance.

At Myrnohrad, roughly 10 km east of Pokrovsk there are reports that its defenders the 38th Marine Brigade and 25th Air Assault Brigade are also under pressure from the north. Russian attacks into Rodynske, a small village to the north west of Myrnohrad are being reported and it is likely that in the next few days the Russians will try to intersect the Ukraine’s lines of communication between the two towns. 

The battle is hard and unforgiving, Russia continuing to advance slowly while Ukrainian forces make small local counter attacks.  Further, north Ukraine’s Azov Corps continues to destroy Russian forces in the Dobropila salient. And last week’s question remains unanswered.

Conclusion 

The current situation is unfortunate because it exposes potential weaknesses in the current White House. The sudden change in policy sent shockwaves around the world, creating uncertainty and confusion that will be noted by America’s competitors.  Strategists in China, Russia, Iran and other countries that compete with, or oppose the US are watching closely.  And it is hard not to interpret this situation as indicative of a confused and unprofessional White House.

The first poorly written US proposal that stated Russian positions without analysis or being challenged demonstrates that at least some key advisors can be easily influenced. In conclusion the sudden change in US policy, the way proposal was released and the confusing messages indicate that officials in the White House are not working as a team.  A situation that weakens America, and its allies. 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack