A Blueprint for Ukrainian Surrender

I f the leaked peace proposal for Ukraine were intended as dark satire, it would be grimly effective. As a serious diplomatic framework endorsed by some American negotiators, it is a tragedy. The proposal does not merely ask Ukraine to accept an unequal peace; it demands that they attend Vladimir Putin’s victory parade, funded by the West.

Amid an outcry over the terms, U.S. officials reportedly have worked to revise the draft; as National Review’s editorial says, let’s hope the proposal improves from here.

It would be difficult for it to get worse: The proposal requires enormous Ukrainian concessions while demanding remarkably little from the aggressor responsible for more than almost 2 million killed or wounded and 10 million civilian refugees. This imbalance is not just morally repugnant; it is strategically disastrous.

The terms of the deal as originally outlined were stark. Ukraine would be expected to surrender large swaths of sovereign territory, including land its soldiers have successfully defended for nearly four years at a staggering cost in blood and treasure. Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk would be treated as de facto Russian. The United States and its European allies would formally accept these new borders, essentially legitimizing conquest by force in the 21st century.

Furthermore, Ukraine’s military would be capped at a size that leaves the country defenseless against future Russian aggression, and Kyiv would be permanently blocked from joining NATO. Russian would even be mandated as an official language of Ukraine. The list of humiliations goes on.

The asymmetry of the ledger is breathtaking. While Ukraine would be required to trade tangible, irreversible assets (territory, defensible borders, and military capacity) Russia is asked for only the most ephemeral of commodities: Vladimir Putin’s promises.

Moscow would “promise” not to invade again. It would “promise” to respect its neighbors. It would “promise” to participate in a program regarding the more than 20,000 Ukrainian children it has systematically abducted. Yet, none of these commitments contain binding enforcement mechanisms.

Western negotiators should not want to resurrect the ghost of Munich: a non-binding pledge from Moscow will not satiate Russian imperial ambition in 2025. To trade blood and soil for a proven liar’s promise is not diplomacy; it is a delusion that endangers the entire security architecture of Europe and the world. If Putin is rewarded for invading Ukraine and killing millions, then why should Xi Jinping not invade Taiwan?

We must not forget that in invading Ukraine, Russia shattered numerous treaties its own leaders had signed. Two days before the February 2022 invasion, Putin promised French President Emmanuel Macron that he had “absolutely no intention” of attacking. It is beyond credible that any member of the White House still believes Putin’s signature is worth the ink used to write it. The fact that U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and perhaps others in the White House, place so much faith in the bloody Russian dictator raises difficult questions of integrity and judgment.

Crucially, the proposal places no limits on the size or posture of Russia’s military forces. It requires no withdrawal of Russian troops from territory seized since 2022 and even hands Russia territories it never managed to capture on the battlefield. It includes no obligation to repair any of the estimated $1 trillion in physical damage inflicted on Ukraine. It erases the central aspirations of Ukrainian society: to live in freedom, to choose its own destiny, and to control its own security.

Most perversely, the aggressor is not just absolved; he is enriched. Under this plan, sanctions would vanish, the G8 would welcome a war criminal back into the fold, and American firms would be encouraged to resume partnerships with Russian competitors in critical sectors like artificial intelligence and Arctic energy.

This would be diplomatic insanity. Why would the United States voluntarily aid the technological modernization of an adversary that has explicitly designated us as a strategic enemy?

Peace is a noble goal, but bad peace can be worse than no peace at all. This proposal, as originally drafted, validates the aggressor, cripples the defender, and humiliates the negotiator. Negotiators must come up with something better and, if they can’t, reject this — for Ukraine’s sake, and to preserve American credibility on the world stage. We cannot buy peace by selling out our principles — or our friends.