Is the Russia-Ukraine war ending? Trump plan talks intensify
Editor's note: Editor’s note: Vladimir Bekish is a Russian military-political analyst and an expert in strategic security, with a focus on the Middle East and Africa. The article reflects the author’s personal views and may not represent the position of News.Az.
Once again, the world’s attention is focused on a single development in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war: the “Trump plan,” originally outlined in 28 points, along with the negotiations and statements of the key actors involved.
These negotiations are taking place on multiple levels: between Ukrainian and U.S. representatives in Kyiv and Europe; between U.S. and Russian officials; between European officials and both the U.S. and Ukraine; and, most unexpectedly, directly between Ukrainian and Russian representatives in Abu Dhabi.
Adding to the complexity is the recently publicized phone conversation between U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. The exchange sheds light on a striking alignment between Trump’s closest allies and certain Russian officials: both appear committed to fulfilling Trump’s goal of ending the war, largely irrespective of the outcome for either side. According to reports, Witkoff even advised Ushakov to suggest that Putin call Trump to express admiration — a telling example of the broader strategy at play.
Photo: TASS
A crucial point is that the advisers and aides involved seem well aware that Trump is less concerned with the war’s outcome than with the mere fact that hostilities stop. Victory for either side is secondary to the achievement of a ceasefire.
The war could theoretically end in several ways.
If Russia “wins,” it would secure the territories it wants, destroy Ukraine’s infrastructure, dismantle the Ukrainian military, and potentially destabilize or dissolve the Ukrainian government. In other words, it would place Ukraine in a position where it loses everything it can possibly lose, and perhaps even ceases to exist as a state. But the main point, from Trump’s perspective, is that the war would stop. And that would fulfill what he has promised the world.
Conversely, if Ukraine were to achieve victory and Russia were forced to withdraw, global attention would once again celebrate Trump as the figure who “stopped the war,” regardless of the improbability of such an outcome given Russia’s military capabilities, nuclear arsenal, and industrial resources. Even with European and NATO support for Ukraine and crippling sanctions on Russia, the result would still satisfy Trump’s ultimate objective: a cessation of hostilities. The world would once again be eager to shout, “Donald Trump has stopped the war again! Another war!”, which is precisely what he wants.
Recent media reports suggest Ukraine is nearing acceptance of the “Trump plan,” with President Zelensky reportedly preparing to meet the demands conveyed through Witkoff and General Driscoll. What exactly might be signed remains unclear, as the “Trump plan” is not a single binding document that immediately resolves the conflict.
Photo: AFP
Meanwhile, reports indicate Russia is also prepared to agree to the plan in principle, even though officials such as Peskov and Lavrov have stated they have not formally received the document.
Negotiations are actively underway in Abu Dhabi, involving high-level representatives from Kyiv and Moscow, including Ukrainian intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, Admiral Kostyukov of the Russian General Staff, and Sergey Naryshkin of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Following these discussions, Ukraine reportedly declared its near-complete readiness to accept the plan.
The involvement of Kostyukov and Naryshkin appears pivotal. Their presence likely influenced Ukraine’s willingness to consider Trump’s plan and agree to at least a temporary suspension of hostilities. However, the plan still contains points that Ukraine cannot fully accept, especially those requiring territorial concessions and a permanent constitutional ban on NATO membership. While the plan guarantees Ukraine’s security through Western powers, enforcement would require military action — something that contradicts Russia’s demand for Ukrainian demilitarization.
Within the “Trump plan,” among the original 28 points, of which only 19 remained, and now reportedly 22, there are provisions that Ukraine cannot possibly accept. The country is actively fighting precisely to resist these unacceptable conditions. Central to the dispute are the territorial concessions Ukraine would be forced to make to Russia. These demands are non-negotiable for Moscow, as these regions are now “constitutionally” considered part of Russia.
The plan also calls for a permanent prohibition on Ukraine joining NATO. Crucially, this ban would not be imposed by presidential decree but would require a legislative amendment to the Ukrainian Constitution. At the same time, the plan promises full security guarantees for Ukraine from Europe and even the United States. Yet such guarantees could only be enforced through military means — again, something entirely unacceptable to Russia, which continues to demand Ukraine’s full demilitarization.
Returning to the roles of Kostyukov and Naryshkin in the Abu Dhabi negotiations, it seems likely that representatives of Russia’s General Staff and Foreign Intelligence Service presented information that had a significant impact on the Ukrainian delegation. It is plausible that they shared intelligence regarding the intentions and potential actions of Trump and European powers regarding the future of the conflict. This information may have suggested that future Western actions would not favor Ukraine, making full compliance with the plan appear the most pragmatic option.
Photo: Shutterstock
It is also possible that Russian military representatives presented a detailed plan for the near-term deployment of Russian forces against Ukraine if Kyiv refused to accept all terms of the “Trump plan,” comply with the required signatures, and acknowledge defeat.
At the same time, Russia’s foreign intelligence chief may have disclosed highly sensitive and potentially scandalous information about Ukrainian leaders, politicians, and military personnel. Should Ukraine refuse to acknowledge the realities on the front lines, including territorial losses, the NATO ban, and other conditions Russia deems non-negotiable, this information could be released publicly, potentially ending the careers of Ukraine’s leaders and destabilizing the country.
The current situation is undeniably complex and confusing. Yet the central question remains: will the war truly end, and if so, under what conditions? Based on current developments, it seems likely that events will unfold in a manner consistent with Trump’s objectives, as he has done in other conflicts worldwide. Specifically, an agreement on a truce and ceasefire appears imminent, followed by multilateral negotiations aimed at formally concluding the conflict and determining its final terms.
Naturally, any such outcome would be celebrated as another victory for President Trump, much like the supposed successes he claimed in conflicts in the Middle East. Yet, as history shows, ceasefires are often fragile. The pause in hostilities between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely to last indefinitely, and fighting is expected to gradually resume — much like in the Middle Eastern scenarios Trump claimed to resolve.
Ultimately, however, that is secondary. What truly matters, in the eyes of the narrative, is that Donald Trump once again positions himself as the singular figure capable of stopping a conflict — an image the world appears ready to embrace.
(If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at opinions@news.az).
Similar news
