🔗 Share this article

Former President Donald Trump remarked this past weekend that the Russian-prepared proposal for peace was "not my final offer", following fierce criticism from Ukrainian leaders and commentators who likened it to the Munich pact of 1938 involving Chamberlain and Hitler.

In brief comments at the White House, Trump told journalists: Our goal is to achieve peace. It should’ve happened a long time ago … we’re trying to get it ended, one way or the other we have to get it ended."

Upcoming Switzerland Talks Involve Various Countries

Ukrainian and American delegates will meet in Geneva this Sunday for discussions on this proposal. Security officials from France, Britain and Germany will also participate in the talks there.

Ahead of these discussions, US senators told the press that Secretary of State Rubio reached out to them while en route to Geneva to clarify the nature of the leaked plan. He said, the proposal "was not the administration’s plan" but instead reflected Russian desires, as reported by Senator King, a member on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Zelenskyy Faces Crucial Time Limit

Nevertheless, Trump has given Zelenskyy until Thursday to sign this multi-point agreement. The document requires Ukraine to give up land it currently controls to Moscow, reduce its military forces, and surrender long-range weapons. Additionally, it rules out international peacekeepers and penalties for atrocities committed by Russia.

During a solemn speech last Friday, Zelenskyy warned that his country faces a difficult decision in the near future involving preserving its national dignity and forfeiting key ally in the shape of the US. Zelenskyy acknowledged that Ukraine is experiencing an extremely challenging period in its history.

Ukraine's Dialogue Delegation Formed for Geneva Meetings

Speaking this weekend, the president said that real or respectable resolution was always based on assured safety and fairness. He revealed a delegation, established by presidential decree, that would soon meet American representatives in Switzerland, headed by his chief of staff Andriy Yermak.

Another member from Ukraine's team, former defence minister and security council official Rustem Umerov, stated they will hold discussions with Washington "on the possible parameters of a future peace agreement".

Hinting at red lines, Umerov added: "Ukraine approaches this process with a clear understanding of its interests. This is another stage of the dialogue that has been ongoing in recent days and is primarily aimed at aligning our vision for the next steps."

International Response and Criticism

The Ukrainian president has attempted to participate positively with the US administration apparently intent to end the conflict on the Kremlin’s one-sided terms. He has emphasized that he will not surrender the nation's independence or abandon a constitution that protects Ukraine's territorial integrity.

At a meeting held in South Africa, leaders from the G20 and EU representatives released a collective declaration opposing the proposed deal, saying it needs "additional work". The statement indicated that EU and Nato members must be involved on some of its provisions, which rule out Kyiv’s Nato membership and put conditions on its future EU accession.

Citizen Opinion in Kyiv

Responses from Ukrainians to the proposal, prepared by a Russian representative and a US delegate, have been largely negative. Analysts said it was a blueprint for further Russian aggression: targeting not just Ukraine but of other parts of Europe too.

Mustafa Nayyem, a journalist and politician who led the 2014 Maidan protests, said it drew comparisons with the Munich Agreement. The proposal belonged to a similar category, where the affected party is asked "to formulate his own defeat so everyone else can live easier".

In a Facebook post, he said he was outraged by its "full" amnesty for Russian war crimes. This offended those who sought shelter in affected cities – sites of civilian executions – and for those whose children had been forcibly deported to Russian territory. A deeply cynical deal, he stated.

In an interview in Kyiv’s Golden Gate metro station, Dmytro Sariskyi, 21, commented that Moscow has attempted to control Ukraine politically and territorially over many years. It conceded "barely anything" in the Trump agreement and maintained its forces on Ukrainian soil. In my view, this deal aims to undermine Ukraine and impose unfair terms, he remarked.

If Zelenskyy signed off on the proposals Kyiv would be forced to sacrifice its liberties, he added. If it didn’t, the US would most likely break off cooperation and intelligence sharing, a crucial source of military intelligence for Ukraine's forces. "There is no good way out of this for now," he noted.

Varied Perspectives from Ukrainian Citizens

Another passenger, teenager Sofia Barchan, said that Ukraine would "keep strong" without American support. We will continue our struggle as needed. Crimea and the eastern regions are part of Ukraine. It belongs to Ukraine." She expressed that the president is intelligent and predicted he would not cede territory.

While speaking during rainfall, next to a replica of Kyiv’s original medieval gate, Ivanovna mentioned she was grateful to the former US leader for his attempts to broker peace. She said that Ukraine ought to consider ceding Crimea and the eastern Donbas region temporarily if it meant keeping America as a partner. The president should conduct a public vote on this matter, she said.

European Officials Criticize the Plan

Former European heads of state have roundly condemned this proposal. Ex-PM of Finland Sanna Marin described it as a disaster, not only for Ukraine and Ukrainians but for "all of the democratic world". She said if Western nations display vulnerability – as it did in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea – "more aggression and conflicts" would follow.

The former prime minister of Belgium, Verhofstadt, quoted Churchill’s definition of an appeaser as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last". He continued: "Trump now takes Putin’s side. Europe must choose again: appeasement or our values, imperialism or freedom. A critical juncture for the European Union."