Trump’s Failure and Greed in Ukraine

How a Peace Plan Became a Vehicle for Personal Gain, Appeasement, and the Corruption of U.S. Foreign Policy

Included in this post is a template for any concerned readers looking to write their representatives

Chaos. Confusion. Surrender. Betrayal.

Many words could describe the fiasco surrounding the leaked proposal to end the war in Ukraine, but one stands above the rest: failure.

The Trump administration has failed to defend American interests and to protect the cause of our allies. The Trump administration has failed to stand up to Russia’s maximalist demands, to conduct transparent and principled diplomacy, and to pursue a just and lasting peace rather than appeasement, capitulation, and personal gain. From bottom to top, it is failure at every level.

Earlier this month, Axios published a leaked 28-point “peace plan” negotiated behind closed doors. The document triggered emergency meetings across European capitals and in Washington, not because it represented a viable diplomatic solution but because it exposed the most brazen example to date of transactional diplomacy corrupted by financial self-interest. Linguistic analysis suggests the plan’s English version was likely written by a native Russian speaker. In a separate recording, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff can be heard coaching Russian representatives on how to manipulate Trump and secure concessions from Ukraine. At the same time, Secretary of State and interim National Security Advisor Marco Rubio rushed to conduct damage control for the administration, apparently unaware of a publicly circulating European counterproposal, which reveals a worrying isolation of senior American officials from the actual contours of the negotiations.

That isolation now appears deliberate. Recent reporting from the Wall Street Journal indicates that members of Trump’s inner circle, including Donald Trump Jr., have participated in discussions with Russian oligarchs about lucrative post-war business opportunities. These are individuals directly financing or coordinating elements of Putin’s war machine. It is increasingly evident that the push to finalize a peace plan is not driven by strategic logic or concern for European stability, but by the lure of personal profit and the willingness to collaborate with adversaries at the expense of American credibility and security.

This episode demonstrates not realism, but the degradation of diplomacy into a real estate deal, complete with secret buyers, private leverage, and transactional opportunism. Historically, appeasement has taken many forms, from the Munich Agreement of 1938 to the failed security assurances of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. In nearly every case, concessions to an aggressor produced more instability, not less. What makes this moment uniquely dangerous is that the concessions under consideration are not being made out of naiveté or misplaced optimism, but out of direct personal benefit to those negotiating them.

At the center of this misadventure is Steve Witkoff’s recorded conversation in which he advises Russian officials on how to tailor their proposal to win Trump’s approval, while promoting territorial concessions by Ukraine. Witkoff’s statements contradict longstanding U.S. policy and reveal a stunning betrayal of diplomatic integrity. Most disturbing, he suggests that Vladimir Putin should call Trump before President Zelenskyy’s scheduled visit to Washington in order to discourage the delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. That advice proved effective: Trump reversed course and withheld the weapons Ukraine urgently needed.

What do you call a country where foreign adversaries are advised on how to manipulate its president, where official negotiators undermine national interests for personal gain, and where decisions are shaped by whoever last spoke to the leader? Occupied. Witkoff’s continued role is untenable. His actions demand resignation, investigation, and full congressional scrutiny. The credibility of American diplomacy has been severely compromised.

What is unfolding is not a negotiation, but a successful Russian influence operation. Regardless of the eventual outcome, Russia has already gained a strategic advantage by framing the terms of the conversation. Under this framework, Ukraine either capitulates to Russian demands or loses American support. Both outcomes weaken Ukraine and fracture the transatlantic alliance that has long been the cornerstone of Western security. Timing has not been incidental. The leak emerged just as Ukraine grapples with a domestic anti-corruption crisis, while Russian forces attempt to intensify their operations near the line of contact. The illusion of imminent peace, amplified through strategic leaks and disinformation, risks eroding morale in Ukraine’s military and destabilizing its political leadership.

Simultaneously, Russian Orthodox Church envoys have met with White House officials and sympathetic members of Congress to promote false claims of religious persecution in Ukraine. This campaign is designed to justify the administration’s drift away from Ukrainian support, while preparing an even more audacious narrative: that Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression is a threat to U.S. national security. What was once a fringe narrative may become U.S. policy.

One clause in the proposed peace plan is particularly revealing. Article 27 states that the agreement will be legally binding and that its implementation will be overseen and guaranteed by a “Peace Council” headed by President Donald J. Trump, with the authority to impose sanctions for violations. This stipulation would grant Trump personal control over compliance judgments, oversight of Ukraine’s future security posture, influence over sanctions policy even after leaving office, and a private veto over any improvement in Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. In effect, it would turn peace enforcement into a personal franchise.

There is no evidence that Russia is willing to abandon its maximalist demands, which include territorial surrender by Ukraine, abandonment of its NATO aspirations, permanent limits on military strength, and long-term dependency on the Kremlin’s goodwill. Yet, despite knowing this, the White House continues to advance the plan because it confers personal benefit to Donald Trump. These terms are unacceptable now and will remain unacceptable in the future. They were rejected after the Alaska summit and ought to be rejected again forcefully and categorically.

What the administration calls “security guarantees” are meaningless without NATO membership, legally enforceable deterrence, or sustained American and European military support and eventually a presence in Ukraine. Anything less simply repeats the failed promises of Budapest and invites renewed aggression. A peace built on coercion, capitulation, or illusion is not peace at all, it is merely a pause until the next war.

Without American support, Ukraine will be forced to stand alone against Putin’s imperial ambitions. But the consequences would not stop at Ukraine’s borders. Such abandonment would undermine European and American security, destroy the credibility of U.S. alliances, and signal to adversaries worldwide that American policy is for sale.

Europe is already pushing back, exposing secret negotiations and manipulating efforts. The press is documenting the enrichment motives of administration insiders. Now Congress must act. This moment will be remembered not for what happened in Moscow or Kyiv, but for what happened in Washington.

---

Template Letter to Elected Officials

[Elected],

We write to express our profound objection to the 28-point “Putin Peace Plan” your administration seeks to impose on Ukraine. This is not a serious or balanced initiative aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace. Instead, this proposal threatens U.S. national security, undermines the transatlantic alliance, and compromises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

A careful review reveals that the proposal is neither aligned with longstanding American principles nor consistent with strategic interests. It represents a capitulation to Russian aggression and a surrender of Western values. By rewarding Moscow’s invasion, dividing our allies, and encouraging future coercion, it would weaken the foundations of global stability. The fact that this proposal originated in Moscow, without genuine input from Ukraine or Europe and with minimal consultation with the U.S. national security establishment, is deeply troubling. For those who claim to admire Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill, there is only one appropriate word for such a policy: appeasement.

History teaches that dictators interpret concessions as weakness. By demanding Ukraine’s capitulation while leaving Europe vulnerable, Vladimir Putin seeks to achieve through manipulation what he has failed to secure through force. Whether accepted or rejected, these terms advance Moscow’s interests and erode American influence and security.

Given these concerns, we urge Congress to conduct oversight hearings on the administration’s handling of the proposed peace plan and to ensure that all congressionally appropriated funds for Ukraine are lawfully and effectively expended.

[Elected], we call on the President to reverse course, reaffirm America’s commitment to Ukraine’s defense, and stand firmly for the democratic values that have long defined our nation’s leadership in the world.

Sincerely,
[Signatories]