We shouldn't expect a positive breakthrough in the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia over the next six months

The plan calls for an immediate ceasefire, the mutual withdrawal of troops, the creation of a demilitarized zone, and the provision of international security guarantees to Ukraine.

In reality, there is nothing fundamentally new in this plan. All of this had already been discussed in various combinations earlier this year during trilateral negotiations. However, there is no longer any mention of a unilateral withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas.

An important clarification: this does not appear to be a fully finalized “peace plan” yet, but rather a draft being coordinated by Ukraine, the U.S., and European countries, which they plan to present to Moscow. The article notes that Zelenskyy himself speaks of “proposals” and says that several more ideas are expected from the American side.

The Times links the emergence of these proposals to the August 24–28 visit to Moscow by Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s secretary for relations with states. This visit is already underway. In particular, Gallagher has already met with Lavrov. The publication speculates that peace proposals could be conveyed to the Russian side through the Vatican representative, although there is no official confirmation of such mediation.

However, a question arises: why convey this plan through the Vatican when it would be more logical to convey it through American negotiators? That would offer a better chance for it to be considered and discussed.

Putin’s press secretary, Peskov, has already publicly rejected this plan. It is possible that the Russians received it even before this publication. Let me remind you that on August 22, Putin had already stated that he was receiving certain proposals through intermediaries regarding ending the war, but called them “exotic” and unacceptable. Perhaps he was referring specifically to these proposals.

What should we understand in the context of the current negotiation situation? If the Kremlin perceives any peace initiatives as “Zelenskyy’s Plan,” then this plan will have no chance of success. Under current conditions (especially in the context of the air war), peace initiatives from Ukraine will be perceived by the Kremlin as a sign of weakness. And the response will not be an agreement to negotiate, but rather an intensification of military pressure on Ukraine.

The Vatican’s role as a mediator also offers no guarantee of success. For Putin, only Trump is of interest and importance. If the Americans were to present a new version of a peace plan, then some form of discussion might be possible.

Some people initially interpreted the news of a U.S. Air Force transport plane in Moscow as a visit by Witkoff and Kushner, but when it became known that it was CIA Director John Ratcliffe, they began to view it as an extraordinary negotiating mission. The issues surrounding the Russian-Ukrainian war and the terms of its conclusion may be part of Ratcliffe’s talks in the Kremlin, but it seems to me that the main objectives of the CIA director’s visit to Moscow are, after all, different.

No matter what “peace plans” may emerge now, it’s important to understand that Russia will not agree to a ceasefire right now. At this moment and for the coming months, we are highly vulnerable to Russian ballistic missile attacks. And as long as the Kremlin holds this “trump card” (especially on the eve of winter and throughout the winter), they will hope to either win the war or force us to make significant concessions. We need to weather this period, and once Moscow realizes that its latest winter offensive has not brought victory, a window of opportunity will open for new peace talks.

And so, in my view, we shouldn’t expect any positive breakthrough in the negotiation process over the next six months. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to restart the negotiations. However, only the Americans can do this right now and in the near future.

Source