Is the 28-Point Peace Plan a Real Path to Peace, or Just More Political Theater?

A recent diplomatic proposal, a 28-point peace plan, has surfaced, sparking surprise and varied reactions. While some in the West, particularly hawks in the US and Europe, have quickly dismissed it as a "capitulation," former CIA analyst Larry Johnson offers a different perspective. He argues that the plan, while not perfect, represents a starting point for negotiations, but critically, it’s unlikely to be accepted by Russia in its current form.

Key Takeaways

• Russia Hasn’t Seen the Official Document: Despite talks, Russia’s foreign ministry and the Kremlin state they haven’t received a formal document from the US to react to.
• US-Centric Perspective: The plan appears to be written from a US viewpoint, not fully accounting for Russia’s stated interests and security concerns.
• Unrealistic Military Limits: A point limiting Ukraine’s armed forces to 600,000 personnel is seen as unrealistic, given Russia’s own proposals and the current military situation.
• Territorial Issues Remain Contentious: The plan’s approach to territories like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia is problematic, as Russia considers some of these already part of its federal republic.
• Potential for Extended Negotiations: The plan, despite its flaws, could initiate a negotiation process between the US and Russia that might last at least six months.
• Russia’s Military Advantage: Russia is seen as winning on the battlefield, with accelerating offensive operations, suggesting a potential military resolution rather than a diplomatic one.
• US Strategy May Be to Force Ukraine’s Hand: The plan might be a US tactic to pressure Ukraine into accepting terms by presenting a seemingly reasonable offer that Russia could potentially accept.
• Root Cause Misunderstanding: The US narrative on the conflict, particularly regarding NATO expansion, is seen as divorced from reality by some analysts.
• Economic Incentives for War: Powerful financial interests in the US benefit from the ongoing conflict, creating a disincentive for seeking peace.

The Plan’s Unacceptability to Russia

Johnson points out that Russia hasn’t officially received the 28-point plan. When they do, it’s likely to be viewed as a non-starter. While diplomatic language might suggest a willingness to negotiate for a "just solution," privately, the sentiment is that the West still doesn’t understand Russia’s core concerns. The plan, while showing some thought went into it, is fundamentally written from a US perspective. It doesn’t fully acknowledge Putin’s clearly laid-out interests from June 2024, which Russia is now prepared to expand if not met. This includes potentially taking more Ukrainian territory and holding referendums for those regions to join Russia.

Specific Points of Contention

One of the most striking points in the document is the proposed limit on Ukraine’s armed forces to 600,000 personnel. This is significantly higher than the 85,000 active-duty cap Russia proposed during talks in March 2022. Johnson calls this "Western delusional thought," highlighting a disconnect from reality. Another major issue is the handling of territories. While the plan might recognize Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk as Russian, it suggests a freeze in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. However, under Russia’s current constitution, these territories are already part of Russia, making them non-negotiable in the way the US proposes.

The Battlefield Reality

Johnson emphasizes that Russia is currently winning militarily. Their offensive operations are expanding, and Ukraine is struggling to keep up. He predicts that by the time any substantive agreements are reached through negotiations, the military situation could lead to the collapse of Ukraine. The Ukrainian leadership’s strong opposition to the plan, while understandable from their perspective, might backfire if it allows the US to shift blame for the lack of progress.

The Role of US Policy and Economics

There’s a strong argument that the war will only end when US support ceases. The casualty and desertion rates in Ukraine are staggering, far exceeding new recruit numbers. This suggests Ukraine is in a "death spiral." Furthermore, the US has a significant financial incentive to prolong the conflict. Powerful elements within the military-industrial complex and political spheres profit immensely from the war, making peace a less attractive option economically. The idea of inviting Russia back into the G8, for instance, is seen as a ridiculous offer from a weakened US perspective, especially when BRICS holds more economic power.

A Path Forward?

While the 28-point plan is unlikely to be accepted as is, it might serve as a catalyst for renewed US-Russia talks. Russia, despite its frustrations, is open to dialogue. However, they seek a "normal" relationship, not one based on constant subversion. Simple steps like re-establishing direct flights, returning seized property, and lifting travel bans could signal a genuine desire for normalization. The current situation, however, is complicated by entrenched interests in Washington that benefit from the conflict, making peace a difficult proposition despite the clear military advantage Russia holds.