Leaked Trump 100-Day Peace Plan Might be Successful in Achieving End to War in Ukraine

Ukraine faces potential military collapse if cease-fire is delayed another few months as Russia races to take more territory before a peace deal is finalized.

President Donald J. Trump being interviewed by Fox News Host Sean Hannity during which he blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for choosing to fight instead of negotiating a peace deal with Russia to end Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership to avoid an outbreak of the war.

What a difference a week makes! President Donald J. Trump's landslide electoral victory has restored a hope in America's future not seen since the Reagan-Bush era and the collapse of the Soviet Union over three decades ago with the prospect for an enduring peace bringing lasting security to our great nation. The brilliant Trump strategy of increased diplomatic pressure coupled with threats of increases tariffs is getting other nations to do our bidding--making America great again in the process. Before he had even took office, Trump had already caused the socialist leaders of Germany and Canada to announce their resignations.

In just the past week, America has gone from having a senile, warmongering US president who provoked an unnecessary war in Ukraine bringing America to the verge of having to fight an unnecessary nuclear war to having a brilliant, courageous and decisive President that has cut off all aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelensky to agree to a negotiated cease-fire with Russia.

Even the People’s Republic of China is showing increased respect for President Trump during a phone call that took place on January 17th in contrast to the borderline contempt that top Chinese leaders showed senior Biden administration officials. During the call, Trump said he has “always had a great relationship” with President Xi Jinping and looked forward to “getting along with China.” "It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together,” Trump declared. "President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the world more peaceful and safer!" Trump could use exactly this kind of mutually beneficial diplomacy and personal charm to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine in short order. Trump was even able to pressure Israel into accepting a cease-fire in Gaza before he was sworn in as President, a singular diplomatic triumph that could serve as a useful model for how he could swiftly pressure Zelensky into accepting peace with Russia.

While President Trump has certainly given mixed signals over the past few weeks with his comments that he doesn’t know if Putin wants a peace deal and his threats to increase tariffs, taxes and sanctions on Russia if he does not, he appears to be far more inclined to putting America first by taking a position of genuine neutrality in the war between Russia and Ukraine than his mentally challenged predecessor. For the past few weeks, Trump has been saying he wants to meet with Putin soon to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.

Within days of his inauguration, Trump suspended all Ukraine aid for a period of ninety days, a step which I have long been stating is the most important step to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into accepting a cease-fire he has been adamant in opposing over the past few years of war. Former Trump Campaign Director Steve Bannon has warned that there is a danger that if Trump heeds the calls of his neocon advisors to keep arming Ukraine to fight its unwinnable war against Russia rather than negotiating a peace agreement with terms acceptable to Moscow. “If we aren’t careful, it will turn into Trump’s Vietnam. That’s what happened to Richard Nixon. He ended up owning the war and it went down as his war not Lyndon Johnson’s,” Bannon is right but Trump’s order to suspend all US aid to Ukraine gives us a lot of hope that he will not fall into the same trap that Nixon did.

President Trump would be wise not to resume aid until Ukraine signs a peace deal ending the war. In fact, Trump should announce he is permanently ending US aid to Ukraine and tell the EU any future Ukraine aid is their responsibility now to relieve US taxpayers of this unnecessary and expensive burden which has already cost $200 billion with no return on our investment to date. Furthermore, Bloomberg News reported that Trump is not interested in having the US pay for Ukrainian reconstruction and wants the EU to pay US contractors to allow us to recoup some of the sunk costs from the nearly $200 billion that Biden sent to Ukraine after provoking and then prolonging this unnecessary and senseless war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly asked to attend President Trump’s inauguration multiple times but his requests were rebuffed in further demonstration of Trump’s desire to present himself as a neutral mediator to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic end to the conflict.

Last week, Trump also revealed he proposed “denuclearization” (ie mutual reductions in the size of the US and Russian nuclear arsenals) to Putin during his first term and that Putin was supportive of further nuclear cuts beyond those realized under Obama’s New START Treaty which Russia announced it was suspending its adherence to in 2023. Russian President Putin responded by saying Russia is interested in restarting nuclear arms control discussions in the wake of the Biden administration poisoning the well of US-Russian relations by aiding Ukraine in bombarding targets deep inside Russia with long-range US missiles.

However, Trump’s stated desire to “cut way back” on the size of the US nuclear triad would be very risky from a US national security perspective given that the US currently lacks a nuclear arsenal of sufficient size to credibly deter Russia and China given their nuclear arsenals are now much larger than our own. Rather than negotiate a nuclear arms control treaty with much lower caps on the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads of around 1,000 each, the US should negotiate a treaty with Moscow that has much higher limits of around 3,500 each to account for Russia’s recent nuclear breakout of the New START Treaty as well as China’s refusal to limit the size of its nuclear arsenal in any way.

Why is the War in Ukraine Still Being Fought?

On February 24, 2022, Russian forces engaged in a “shock and awe” Blitzkrieg-style offensive, invading Ukraine with 190,000 troops in flagrant violation of international law. Despite being numerically outnumbered by Ukrainian forces, Russian troops, in just five days, succeeded in capturing parts of eight Ukrainian oblasts and partially surrounding the Ukrainian capitol of Kyiv within ten miles of the city center, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky back to the negotiating table. A slew of senior US military officers and intelligence officials predicted that Ukraine’s surrender was mere days or, at most, weeks away while President Joe Biden offered Zelensky a USAF aircraft to use to flee the country and go into exile. On March 1st, having accomplished the primary goal of the invasion which was to use military force to pressure Ukraine to begin peace negotiations with Russia, Putin ordered a halt to advancing Russian tank columns on the road from Belarus to Kyiv.

Four weeks later, Ukrainian negotiators were celebrating their diplomatic triumph in getting the Russians to sign the Istanbul agreement which, apart from limits on the number of weapons and ranges that could be retained by the Ukrainian military, was handwritten by Kyiv, meaning they had succeeded in getting the Russians to accept their proposed peace terms. On March 31st, Putin, believing an end to the war to be just a week away, made the fateful error of announcing a unilateral Russian military withdrawal from all of northern Ukraine, including Kyiv, as the first step towards implementing the peace agreement which had been initialed by both Russia and Ukraine. Had he not done so, with Kyiv still partially surrounded by Russian military forces, Zelensky would have been compelled to make peace.

The date agreed to by Putin and Zelensky to meet and sign a permanent cease-fire and peace agreement was on April 9th, but the day before Biden sent UK PM Boris Johnson to Kyiv to veto the agreement in which Russia had agreed to withdraw all its troops from Ukraine's prewar territory. The Biden administration had stated that the objective of US military aid to Ukraine was to force all Russian troops to withdraw to their pre-war positions but when presented with a peace deal offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin that offered exactly that, the administration did everything in their power to sabotage the agreement and prevent it from being signed. The question is why?

Russian and Ukrainian negotiators meet in Istanbul in March 2022 to sign an agreement that had it been implemented would have mandated the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine’s pre-war controlled territory in what would have been a stunning victory for Ukraine a mere five weeks after the war began saving hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives.

Ted Snider wrote an excellent article in the American Conservative earlier today which provides us with an answer to his vexing question:

"Former President Joe Biden has a lot of explaining to do, as does Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who will need to explain to his exhausted nation why choosing the path of war over the path of diplomacy after the Istanbul talks in March and April of 2022 was worth the cost. At that time, what still seemed to be the Ukrainian goals—continued sovereignty and the withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-war boundaries—might have been met.

Ukraine no longer has the capacity to field the men nor the weapons to hold off the Russian advance. More land will be lost the longer the war goes on, and more men and weapons are not on their way. “The problem with Ukraine is not that they’re running out of money,” Marco Rubio said at his confirmation hearing for his nomination as secretary of state, “but that they’re running out of Ukrainians.”

According to Biden National Security Council official Eric Green, U.S. support for Ukraine was never intended to push Russia out of its territory, recover its lost land, and reassert its territorial integrity. “We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” Green said in an interview with Time. “The more important objective,” he explained, “was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.”

As this Biden National Security official revealed, helping Ukraine retake its lost territory, let alone win the war, was never an objective of the Biden administration because they believed Ukraine lacked the ability to do so, explaining why it vetoed the Istanbul Agreement. In fact, in January 2023, Biden offered Putin twenty percent of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory in exchange for Russia dropping its opposition to Ukraine’s eventual NATO membership, which would have been a significantly worse outcome for Ukraine than it would have had if Zelensky had signed the Istanbul Agreement. Despite this, the Biden administration did everything they could to mislead Ukraine into believing the administration’s repeated commitment to support it “as long as it takes” meant as long as it took to retake Ukraine’s lost territory rather than compel Russia to agree to recognize Ukraine as a permanent NATO military protectorate.

Rather, the Biden administration’s real objective in pressuring Ukraine to continue fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian soldier was to keep Ukraine geopolitically aligned with the US both economically and militarily and ensure it remained entirely dependent on the US for its security as an effective US vassal state. That is the reason why Biden and the neocons have been so adamant in opposing Russia's main demand of neutrality for Ukraine which would effectively rollback NATO out of Ukraine. It is also why Boris Johnson stated “if Ukraine falls it will be a catastrophe for the West. It will be the end of Western hegemony.”

If Ukrainians had realized that Biden’s only reason for urging them to fight an indefinite war against Russia was to preserve the status quo, they would likely abandon their support of the war and demand Zelensky make peace with Moscow, not wanting their sons and brothers to be the last to die in an unwinnable war. Over a million brave Ukrainians have been killed or wounded, having paid the ultimate price for Biden's decision to strong-arm Ukraine into unnecessarily fighting and then indefinitely prolonging a war being fought, not for Ukrainian independence, but for US imperial expansion in Eastern Europe.

Thankfully, President Donald J. Trump is fighting to save Ukraine from losing more lives and territory by negotiating a peace agreement employing the mostly Ukrainian written terms of the Istanbul Agreement but along the current line of control. On January 7^th, Donald J. Trump demonstrated his clear understanding of the origins of the war in Ukraine by stating that he understood why Russia would feel threatened by having a hostile NATO alliance all along its western border especially in Ukraine becoming the first US President in over three decades to publicly concede that it was NATO expansion that served as the primary rationale for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine nearly three years ago. A little over two weeks later, Putin responded favorably by agreeing with Trump that the Ukraine war very well may have never occurred had the 2020 presidential election not been stolen from Trump.

The Leaked Trump 100-day Russo-Ukrainian War Peace Plan

The globalists in both parties continue to pretend that negotiating a peace deal ending Biden’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine is complex, unrealistic and perhaps even unachievable, but the truth is that the path to peace in Ukraine is far from rocket science. It is astonishing to me how it is possible that three years into the war, none of the most prominent foreign policy thinkers in America have been able to come up with a realistically achievable peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, perhaps out of fear for being falsely denounced as advocating a policy of “appeasement.” As I stated in my last article, the path to achieving peace with Russia is surprisingly straightforward is because for the past nearly three years, the US government has had a copy of the exact terms which Russia outlined in the March 2002 Istanbul Agreement. In June 2024, Putin reiterated that any peace agreement must be negotiated on that basis. For the past few years, many of America’s most renowned national security experts have foolishly claimed they didn't know what Putin wanted or have falsely alleged, like the Biden administration, that Putin didn't want peace and wouldn't stop until Russia had conquered all of Ukraine, but they are all badly mistaken.

In June 2022, less than four months after the war began, I published a 15-point peace proposal in the National Interest based on my knowledge of what Russia was seeking from Ukraine in exchange for a full Russian military withdrawal from Ukraine’s pre-war controlled territory. Many of the terms in my proposal proved surprisingly accurate in terms of what would prove minimally acceptable to Russia particularly the 100,000-150,000 active-duty Ukrainian soldiers’ figure which I proposed which exactly matched what the Russians demanded in the Istanbul agreement even though I didn't get access to that agreement until a full two years later when it was published by the New York Times.

Over the past two and a half years, I have published additional peace proposals as to how the US could bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine with more specific, realistically achievable and comprehensive peace terms than any other published proposals in the West. My proposals have drawn both praise and condemnation from Ukraine war proponents. If there is a magic formula to bringing a swift end to the war in Ukraine I believe I may have cracked it. As I have analyzed reports of the Kellogg peace plan over the past seven months or so, his peace proposal had several good elements but also a few that I have noted are highly unrealistic that would doom his proposal to failure preventing a peace agreement from being realized or else ensuring a resumption of the conflict in the very year future.

Yesterday, Newsweek magazine reported on the specific details of a leaked Trump 100-day peace plan with terms that sound very much in sync with Trump administration thinking although the authenticity of the plan remains unverified by the US. The Ukrainian outlet that published the plan stated the US government shared it with European diplomats who subsequently shared it with Ukraine. The Trump administration may be concerned that the leak of its proposed terms may jeopardize peace negotiations though I can see no reason why that would be the case. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the exchange of peace terms by both sides can only serve to expedite a resolution of the conflict and Russia has already made clear what its peace terms are for ending the conflict. Following a review of the terms, I assess that in contrast to the previous reports of the Kellogg peace plan, this plan actually does have a realistic chance of success with one major modification. The plan includes a timeline for ending the war and terms for a potential peace agreement.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is feeling increasingly isolated as Trump has banned all aid to Ukraine to pressure him to revoke his decree banning all peace negotiations with Russia and accept a permanent cease-fire.

The first step of the purported peace plan would be a phone call between Trump and Putin and between Trump and Zelensky at the end of January or early February. This would be followed by meetings between Trump, Zelensky and Putin either all together or separately in late February or early March to discuss the main parameters of a peace plan. On April 20^th, a cease-fire would be announced along the entire front followed by a withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region. At the end of April, an international peace conference would be convened where the US and China would join with countries in Europe and the Global South powers to mediate a formal peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the war while there would be an exchange of all prisoners of war held by Russia and Ukraine. By May 9^th, the international peace conference would announce a formal end to the war while Ukraine will end martial law and military mobilization. Ukraine would hold a presidential election at the end of August.

The terms of the agreement call for Zelensky to lift his decree banning peace negotiations with Russia. Ukraine will not seek the return of the territories that were annexed by Russia and will declare its permanent neutrality outside of NATO. Ukraine would become a member of the European Union by 2030 which would be responsible for funding Ukrainian reconstruction. Ukrainian political parties that represent the country’s Russian minority and support peace with Russia would be allowed to participate in parliamentary elections and all persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church by the Ukrainian government would cease. The number of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will remain at current levels and the US will modernize the Ukrainian Army. After the conclusion of the peace agreement, some sanctions against Russia will be lifted, and restrictions on the import of Russian energy resources to the EU will be lifted.

These latest terms suggest that Trump administration officials realize that the US has comparatively little interest concerning what the specific terms of a peace agreement end up being with regards to the size of the Ukrainian military, the new borders of Ukraine or whether it ever joins NATO. They now seem to understand that the only vital national security interest the US has in Ukraine is ending the war as soon as possible to stop its continuing destruction, halt the weakening of the US and its allies and the strengthening of the Sino-Russian military alliance which the war has entailed and most importantly end the ongoing threat of Russian nuclear escalation.

The Ukrainian government has denounced the plan as Russian propaganda. Newsweek is reporting that, “Zelensky's office has denied that the peace plan is legitimate. Andriy Yermak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, wrote on Telegram that the 100-day peace plan reported by the media did not "exist in reality." He added that such reports often disguised allegations spread by Russians.” However, in my experience when Kyiv denounces something as Russian propaganda it usually ends up being proven true. After announcing he opposes Trump’s peace plan, Zelensky is now saying he could agree to a peace deal with Russia if it allows for Ukrainian NATO membership and the deployment of at least 200,000 NATO peacekeeper including tens of thousands of US troops to defend Ukraine’s borders. However, he is continuing to refuse to end his ban on any Ukrainian peace negotiations with Russia which the Trump peace plan reportedly require him to lift.

The details of the leaked plan appear genuine despite being, as yet, unconfirmed. The proposal to fund Ukrainian reconstruction with tariffs on Russian gas exports to the West seems reasonable as US taxpayers should not be responsible for paying hundreds of billions more to Ukraine after providing them nearly $200 billion in aid to date. The two most important improvements from the previously leaked Kellogg peace plan, which contained a number of unrealistic provisions, are that Ukraine would have to give up NATO membership and accept permanent neutrality and that the proposal for NATO peacekeepers to patrol a DMZ separating Russia and Ukraine would be postponed for discussion after the peace agreement has been signed in recognition of the fact that Russia would never accept them.

The Biggest Obstacle to Finalizing a Peace Agreement

As I predicted in my last article, the biggest holdup to cementing a peace agreement with Russia is the plan’s insistence on keeping the size of Ukraine’s military at its current size of 880,000 active-duty troops while continuing to build up Ukraine’s military arsenal. This Ukraine-claimed total troop total entirely contradict numerous media reports that the Ukrainian army has lost approximately one million men, dead and wounded, and lacks sufficient manpower to defend against a renewed Russian offensive in northern Ukraine with only around 350,000 men left. Russia’s troop losses have been four times lower than Ukraine’s while their military manpower base is five times larger meaning Russia could potentially mobilize several million more troops if Putin gave a full-mobilization order.

During negotiations for the Istanbul Agreement, Ukraine proposed the size of its armed forces be capped at 250,000 active-duty troops “in accordance with the Swedish model” so that should be the starting position for the US in upcoming negotiations. However, Russia proposed a reduction in the size of the number of active-duty Ukrainian troops to 100,000 (including 15,000 National Guard troops) plus an additional 50,000 Border Guard troops, which represented a fifty percent increase from the size they initially had demanded, highlighting a huge gap between the two sides both in terms of maximum troop numbers as well as in terms of Russian proposed arms limitations. Sweden’s military currently has only 25,600 active-duty military personnel and at the time Russia invaded, Ukraine’s population was less than four times larger than Sweden’s so presumably that is how Russia arrived at its proposed 100,000 cap on Ukrainian military personnel.

In any case, the provision in the leaked Trump Ukraine peace plan to retain the current size of the Ukrainian army while modernizing its capabilities will certainly be a dealbreaker for Moscow that, if left unchanged, will likely prevent any peace agreement from ever being signed at all potentially delivering President Trump his first major diplomatic defeat. I believe the easiest way to bridge this gap would be for Ukraine to accept Russia’s proposed 100.000 troop limit in return for Russia agreeing to Ukraine expanding its Border Guard to 150,000 personnel as I recommended in my last Russo-Ukrainian War peace proposal.

It is worth noting that the draft Istanbul agreement, which was primarily authored by Kyiv, and accepted by Russia with few changes outside of troops and arms limitations, did not limit the number of Ukrainian reserve troops so presumably Ukraine could have an army of one million troops including 750,000 reservists which is the number I called for in my most recent peace proposal so that would be one way out of the diplomatic logjam. This is consistent with the terms of the Istanbul Agreement in which Russia referred to the pre-war Swedish model of a small active-duty military but huge numbers of reserve troops which could be mobilized within a matter of weeks in response to enemy aggression. With regards to Ukrainian arms limitations, I proposed the following to split the difference evenly between Russian and Ukrainian proposed limits in the Istanbul Agreement:

Ukraine agrees to Russia’s proposed limits on the quantity and ranges of its offensive "strike systems" systems’ outlined in the April 15, 2022 version of the Istanbul agreement including howitzers, heavy mortars, multiple rocket launch systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, combat aircraft, combat drones and warships as well as air defense missile systems. In exchange, Russia agrees to Ukraine’s proposed quantity limits on primarily defensive weapon systems including, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank guns, ATGMs, auxiliary aircraft, reconnaissance drones, auxiliary vessels, MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery. Ukraine further commits to refrain from producing or possessing weapons of mass destruction and to close all foreign biological labs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who paradoxically has been seeking a negotiated peace deal ever since the day after Russia invaded Ukraine to rollback NATO’s de-facto expansion into Ukraine and restore it to its pre-2014 Maidan coup neutral status after which all Russian troops were to be withdrawn to their pre-war positions.

Why Understanding Russia is the Key to Achieving a Just and Lasting Peace

One important thing for US leaders almost universally fail to understand is that Putin has only attacked Russia’s neighbors except in response to when he has felt threatened by NATO in response to what he views as NATO provocations following the issuance of the Bucharest Declaration in April 2008 in which NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO member states. It has been stated by many Republican leaders in Congress that Putin did not invade any countries when Trump was President because he was afraid of Trump due to the fact he was thought to be unpredictable. However, the real reason that Putin did not invade any of Russia’s neighbors during Trump’s first term is not because he feared Trump but rather because Russia did not feel threatened by the US during his first administration because Putin knew that Trump campaigned on better relations with Russia and was aware that Trump had expressed, more than once, his desire to extricate the US from NATO.

Understanding that Russia is a reactive rather than revanchist power, Ukraine could achieve far more security in agreeing to Russia’s limitations on the size and capabilities of its military than if they refused and Russia felt pressured to sign a peace deal that left Ukraine with a huge military that could re-target Russia’s capitol and nuclear weapons command and control, early warning radars and even its nuclear triad at will. In negotiating a peace agreement with Russia, US leaders should learn the lessons of history and recall that the punitive Treaty of Versailles is widely recognized as having ensured the rise of Hitler and the German invasion of Poland to recover its territories lost under the agreement that led to the outbreak of the Second World War. Similarly, a peace agreement which left Russia, the mightiest nuclear superpower on Earth, feeling dissatisfied, threatened and insecure would only serve to ensure Russia re-invaded Ukraine in the very near future. A neutral and partially demilitarized Ukraine that Russia does not perceive as a threat would prove far more safe and secure than a militarized Ukrainian state which is on the verge of formally becoming a member of the NATO alliance which has proven an existential threat to Russia having fought a proxy war against Russia over the past three years.

The best evidence of this is that while Russian President Putin came to power in December 1999, he did not attack Ukraine until February 2014 in response to the CIA-backed coup that overthrew its democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who had championed a policy of neutrality in furtherance of Ukraine’s constitution and declaration of independence. Accordingly, LTG Kellogg should give up his proposal to “arm Ukraine to the teeth,” as doing so will ensure the continuation of this senseless war or, even if a temporary peace is achieved, ensure a resumption of the conflict in the very near future.

US supplied long range ATACMs missiles which former President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use in deep strikes on Russian cities and military targets bringing us ever closer to World War Three with the Russian Federation.

The reason Russia views Ukraine remaining as a de-facto NATO member state as an existential threat is not because it fears a NATO invasion of Russia but rather because the stationing of US nuclear bombers and missiles in Ukraine a mere 300 miles from Moscow would reduce their warning time to no more than five minutes. According, Russia's primary rationale in staging its limited invasion of Ukraine was to re-establish Ukraine as a nuclear-free buffer zone against a potential US nuclear decapitation first strike on Moscow. I strongly suspect that if the US gave nuclear capable aircraft and missiles to a hypothetical Russian-satellite state in Canada 350 miles from DC, we would react the same way. The only way the US can address Russia’s fear in this regard is with a peace deal permanently keeping them out of NATO and expelling all western troops and bases from Ukraine.

A military commentator who writes under the pseudonym of “Simplicius” pointed out the importance to the Russians of limiting the numbers and ranges of Ukrainian strike systems many of which are nuclear-capable, without which there can be no agreement. He stated:

You see, for decades Russia feared NATO creeping up to its borders due to the ability to inflict various unexpected surprise first-strike attacks on Russian early warning systems and other defenses which would cripple Russia’s ability to detect or respond to a full-fledged American decapitation attack, like a nuclear first strike. Ukraine has already perversely demonstrated its brazenly unscrupled ability to hit Russian strategic level assets like Tu-95 bases, early warning systems, and other infrastructure, like targeting nuclear power plants.

Aside from this the provision stating the Ukrainian military will not undergo a reduction in its size or capabilities, I believe the terms of the reported peace proposal should be broadly acceptable to Moscow, particularly given they would ensure Ukraine’s permanent neutrality outside of NATO and cause Ukraine to give up any plans to give up any of the Russian annexed territories in exchange for Russia dropping its claim to the unoccupied portions of its four annexed oblasts.

Trump’s Reported Pick for Deputy Special Envoy to Russia and Ukraine Makes a Peace Deal More Likely

Dan Caldwell, an Iraq war combat veteran and former colleague of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who helped pick several mid-level Trump Department of Defense appointees, has reportedly been picked to serve as LTG Kellogg’s Deputy Special Envoy to Russia and Ukraine to help lead peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. I believe Caldwell is an outstanding choice for this role given his longtime support of a policy of foreign policy restraint or what Under Secretary of Defense likes to refer to as a grand strategy of “prioritization” to get the US to reduce its military footprint in Europe and the Middle East to refocus our military deterrent capabilities against the People’s Republic of China in the Western Pacific. He will undoubtedly be a voice of reason in helping to persuade the President to modify the administration’s peace plan on the size and capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces to ensure that Trump’s vision of a just and lasting peace agreement ending America’s three-year long proxy war with Russia in Ukraine is ended on the schedule that the President has set.

Dan Caldwell, a former Iraq war veteran who champions a policy of foreign policy restraint, oversaw the Trump transition team for Department of Defense appointees and has reportedly been picked to serve as Deputy Special Envoy for Russia and Ukraine to join LTG Keith Kellogg in mediating a peace agreement between the two warring sides.

During an interview with the Financial Times last month, Caldwell had some impressive insights into US involvement in the war in Ukraine stating he does not believe the US has any vital national interests at stake in Ukraine other than avoiding an unnecessary nuclear war with Russia. These sentiments appear exactly in line with the statements President Trump has made from the beginning of the conflict as well as those who have been made by Vice President JD Vance who was one of the most vocal conservatives in the US Senate in opposition to continued US military aid to Ukraine.

Dan Caldwell “I do not think we have vital national interests at stake. If we do have one interest at stake in the moment, it’s actually a result of our over-involvement in that conflict. And that is we have an interest of it not escalating into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And I think there is heightened risk to that because we have gotten too involved in that conflict as a country. The Biden administration has, particularly the last six months, undertaken many policies that I view as unnecessarily escalatory. And they really stem out of a decision by the Biden administration, and it really predates the Biden administration, to treat Ukraine like it is a core national interest when I don’t think any reasonable assessment of the country would lead us to believe that this is absolutely critical for American safety and prosperity.

I went to Ukraine in June…and what I walked away with was the current policy that’s being pursued by the United States and the west, mainly NATO, but other nations that are involved as well too, is essentially destroying Ukraine as a nation state. I’m not taking the Russians off the hook here. They were the aggressor. They were the ones who made the decision to invade and start this war. But the policies that we’re currently pushing the Ukrainians pursue and enabling the Ukrainians to pursue will lead them to be demographically destroyed…But for the United States, whether or not Russia controls Donbas or Crimea is not a vital interest to us.”

Restoring Democracy to Ukraine

If indeed, this reported peace proposal is real, the date chosen by the Trump administration of May 9^th as the deadline for the participants of an International Peace Conference to publish “a declaration on the agreed parameters for ending the war…after which Kyiv would be asked not to extend martial law or mobilization” of its military is highly significant as it is the day Russia celebrates as its Victory Day over Nazi Germany with military parades through the streets of Moscow. It would seem this date was deftly chosen by President Trump to further incentivize Russian President Putin to agree to a peace deal so he can present it to the Russian people as a symbolic victory for Russia as it celebrates its World War Two victory.

Indeed, it would be a fitting backdrop for Moscow’s Victory Day Parade from a Russian perspective providing, of course, that the agreed upon terms included Russia’s provisions for a reduction in the size and capabilities of Ukraine’s armed forces to reduce the threat that Ukraine will resume its long-range missile strikes targeting Russia’s capitol, nuclear bases, command and control and nuclear ballistic missile early warning phased array radars. As noted, without these provisions, it is highly unlikely that Russia will ever sign a peace agreement, though a temporary cease-fire could still be achieved. Needless to say, the importance of presenting a final peace agreement as a victory for all sides cannot be underestimated as it will sure to ensure that Russia never feels it has reason to attack Ukraine ever again. According to a recent Gallup poll, a majority of Ukrainians support an immediate peace deal even if it would require significant Ukrainian territorial concessions.

Notably, Trump’s reported peace proposal would also require Ukraine to end martial law on May 9^th which would force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has stayed in office past his term in violation of Ukraine’s constitution and who has been sagging in the polls, to reschedule previously cancelled Ukraine’s democratic presidential election which he would be virtually guaranteed to lose to Ukrainian war hero—General Valariy Zaluzhny. No one would ever be able to claim Zaluzhny is a pro-Russian leader as his military and patriotic bona fides to lead Ukraine and put Ukraine’s independence and security first are unassailable. Indeed, he would be extremely well positioned to lead Ukraine back to its formal glory and make Ukraine great again.

General Valeriy Zaluzhny who was fired by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces a year ago allegedly due to his fear he might attempt to oust Zelensky due to his refusal to seek a peace deal with Russia to end what he believed to be an unwinnable war. Zaluzhny is uniquely positioned to restore glory to Ukraine. Some sources suggest that Zaluzhny is being groomed by the UK to replace Zelensky because he is a stronger and more reputable leader but is no less pro-Western.

In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump suggested that Zelensky made a decision to fight Russia rather than negotiate, pointing out that he “could have made a deal” between the two countries “so easily.” Trump said “Zelensky is no angel” and expressed his belief that Zelensky is jointly responsible along with Biden for provoking Russia to invade Ukraine by refusing to give up Ukraine’s attempts to become a NATO member state. Trump appeared to also blame Zelensky for his fateful decision, albeit under heavy Western pressure, to cancel his April 9^th meeting with Putin to sign the Istanbul Agreement which would have mandated a full Russian military withdrawal to their pre-February 24^th, 2022, positions enabling Ukraine to regain control of 93 percent of its internationally recognized territory. In so doing, he unnecessarily prolonged an unwinnable war that has since resulted in over a million Ukrainian military casualties. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Ukrainian people are increasingly turning against him.

As noted above, the agreement would also mandate that Zelensky lift his March 2022 ban on eleven opposition political parties as well as to end his ongoing prosecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox (Christian) Church. The culminative effect of these measures would be to effectively restore democracy and religious freedom to Ukraine for the first time in nearly three years, a laudable objective on the part of President Donald Trump which President Joe Biden entirely neglected during his term in office.

Thus, an end to the war by May 9^th could effectively accomplish the Russian objective of Ukrainian “denazification” because while Zelensky is far from a Nazi himself given he is a Jew, he has been aligning himself with the far-right neo-Nazi militias and extremists almost from the time he took office in 2019. It would be ironic indeed if instead of accomplishing the Western goal of overthrowing Putin that the war instead backfired and resulted in regime change in Kyiv not to mention London, Amsterdam, Vienna, Bratislava, Washington, DC and, soon in Ottawa and Berlin.

Potential Missed Opportunity to Divide the Sino-Russian Military Alliance

While the terms of the proposal are very good overall, I believe it would represent a missed opportunity for President Trump to implement some kind of mutual security agreement with Russia along the lines I have been proposing that he could use to accomplish his goal to “un-unite” the Sino-Russian military alliance. The proposal suggests a limited reduction in Russian economic sanctions upon the signing of the agreement which would be followed by an elimination of all sanctions three years later if Russia continues to abide by the terms of the agreement. This provision is disappointing as its failure to fully normalize trade relations with Russia will force it to remain reliant on the PRC effectively ensuring Russia remains a close Chinese military ally.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, the chief beneficiary of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has pushed Russia into an increasingly closer military alliance with China against the US while also serving to unilaterally disarm the US military of an enormous quantity of its most advanced weapon systems leaving it ill-prepared to fight a war against the PRC over Taiwan.

In October, President Donald Trump declared, “the one thing you never want to happen is you never want Russia and China uniting. I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that.” However, like Biden when he was asked back in June, Trump offered no strategy or timeframe for how or when he plans to divide the Sino-Russian military alliance. I have been publishing articles detailing a strategy for how the US could accomplish this since 2003.

Doug Bandow wrote a worthwhile piece earlier today underlining the strategic imperative of dividing, disrupting and neutralizing the existential threat posed by the Sino-Russian military alliance to US national security. As Bandow suggests, the most strategically sensible strategy for the US would be to transform Russia from an adversary into a strategic partner by ending the war in Ukraine on terms minimally acceptable to Moscow, restore full diplomatic and trade relations, and pull back US troops from Eastern Europe so they stop viewing us as their main enemy. He writes:

Today the PRC is widely recognized as the more threatening power. Although China’s continuing dramatic rise is no longer seen as quite so inevitable, Beijing is likely to be an increasingly formidable adversary in the future. Thus, the sensible objective would be to make Moscow a partner and friend, if not an ally, of America and Europe. Alas, that will be almost impossible so long as the Russo-Ukraine war rages and will remain difficult even if the conflict ultimately settles, given the severe damage done to US and European relations with Moscow. In fact, there is a dearth of will in Washington to improve relations with either country. The belief in America’s virginal omnipotence is bipartisan and overwhelming. Hence, compromise is widely regarded as unthinkable.

Moreover, neither Beijing nor Moscow has reason to trust Washington. The basic problem, noted Brookings, is that “China and Russia’s strategic partnership will persist as long as each continues to see the United States as its principal adversary. The United States maintains a significant trust deficit with both Beijing and Moscow which creates challenges for bilateral engagement. Neither Beijing nor Moscow believes that they have anything to gain by working with Washington to check the other’s influence.” Who can blame them? Washington’s policy toward both is overtly hostile. The Trump administration would have to convince one or both governments that turning westward served their interests.

Still, the US should not treat the status quo as the new normal. Ultimately, running a proxy war-plus against a nuclear-armed power over interests it believes to be existential is reckless and dangerous under any circumstances. Especially when Washington is also contributing to the creation of a new Axis of Evil. To change that, the administration must reduce the perceived US threat to Russia, China, or both. As part of such an effort, Washington should place priority on ending the Russo-Ukraine war. Doing so would advance US security while improving Moscow’s relations with the West, thereby reducing pressure on Russia to ally with China.”

Trump is reportedly planning to cut 20,000 US troops from Europe and demanding our NATO allies pay multi-billion-dollar subsidies for the 80,000 that remain. Since Trump has a goal of reducing the number of US troops in Europe by 20,000, there is no reason why the US couldn’t withdraw all 20,000 of its troops from Eastern Europe in accordance with the terms of my recent peace proposal and pledge to keep them out in return for Russia withdrawing all its troops from Belarus. This measure could be combined with a mutual agreement with Russia for Russia to agree to a policy of non-interference in the Western Hemisphere and NATO in exchange for a US pledge of non-interference in the former Soviet Union except for the Baltic states which are NATO members. This would further President Trump’s stated goal of making our NATO allies more responsible for their own defense, given that the combined GDP PPP of the European Union is over four times higher than Russia’s, instead of continuing to force the US to assume the burden for their security as past Presidents have done since the Cold War ended over thirty-three years ago.

It could even include a provision that neither side’s heavy bombers or major surface combatants travel within 200 miles of the other country, which is the distance at which NORAD intercepts Russian and Chinese nuclear bombers attempting to fly near US airspace. Taken in total, these confidence building measures would constitute a mutual security agreement between the US and Russia that could serve to largely eliminate the Russian nuclear and conventional military threat to the US and its allies and divide the Sino-Russian military alliance, greatly enhancing the safety and security of 286 million Americans in the process. Finally, it could incorporate a Russian pledge of non-interference in the Western Hemisphere and NATO member states in exchange for the US pledging not to interfere in former Soviet republics excepting the Baltic states as well as a pledge that neither side will go to war against the other in the event they are attacked by a third party. This last provision would help ensure Russian neutrality in the even the PRC were to attack the US and its allies.

Urgent Need to End the Fighting as Soon as Possible to Save Ukraine

German Major General Christian Freuding noted earlier this month that “Russia is building up its forces beyond the requirements of the current conflict” to fight NATO. Meanwhile, Zelensky is warning Russia is in the process of building up its troop strength in Ukraine from 600,000-700,000 today to 1.5 million so Russia’s numerical and weapons advantage over Ukraine is only increasing over time not decreasing. Given increasing Russian quantitative superiority, Putin could transfer 150,000-250,000 Russian troops to Belarus to encircle Kyiv in a spring offensive. Were that to occur, Ukraine would not have sufficient troops to stop them without abandoning most of its territory east of the Dnipro River to advancing Russian forces, which would effectively force Ukraine to capitulate and accept Russia’s peace terms.

Implementing this agreement would prevent a single additional square inch of Ukrainian territory from falling under Russia control, allow the long and arduous process of Ukrainian reconstruction to begin, and permit all 10.8 million Ukrainian refugees to return to their homes. Under its terms, the Ukrainian armed forces would remain one of the largest in Europe, with nearly a million men and four to five times more tanks than the UK Royal Army. The administration could credibly point to a peace deal guaranteeing Ukrainian security and independence in which Russia withdrew all its troops from Kursk and Mykolaiv oblasts, renounced all claims on additional Ukrainian territory, and agreed to many Ukrainian-requested limitations on its number of troops and weapons as a major victory for the US.

The leaked peace plan calls for an International Peace Conference to be meet at some time in the near future presumably by April with a number of major powers (presumably including the US, UK, France, Germany and perhaps even the PRC) mediating a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. This could be potentially problematic because the more countries that are involved in trying to negotiate a peace agreement, the more contentious and the difficult it is likely to be and the less likely that any agreement will ever be agreed to. An immediate high-level bilateral negotiation between the US and Russia would be far more effective in ending the war a few months earlier could save the lives of 100,000 Ukrainians killed and wounded given the fact that Ukraine has suffered over 1,000 military casualties a day on average since the war began including over 400 a day killed in action.

Furthermore, it could prevent Ukraine from losing any additional territory as the Russians continue seizing as many Ukrainian strongholds, such as Velyka Novosilka which fell to the Russians yesterday, towns and territory as possible before a cease-fire is agreed to a few months from now. Elite Ukrainian brigades are continuing to disintegrate due to alarmingly high desertion rates before even reaching the front. The Russian advance has been proceeding at an alarming rate, potentially threatening to break through Ukrainian front lines and induce a Ukrainian military collapse before a cease-fire is concluded which would greatly weaken Ukraine’s hand during upcoming negotiations. Lt. General Kyrylo Budanov, Head of Ukrainian Military Intelligence, has warned that if there are no serious negotiations by this summer, Ukraine’s very existence could be threatened. Thus, with every passing day of delay in achieving a permanent cease-fire, Ukraine will end up paying a heavy price and being worse off under any ensuring peace agreement.

© David T. Pyne 2025

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He is the former President and current Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He also serves as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in March or April 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

December 2nd—Interview with COL Rob Manass on the Rob Manass show to discuss Russia’s decision to begin using ICBMs to attack Ukraine to restore deterrence with Ukraine and NATO and show he is willing to escalate the war to the nuclear level if the West does not agree to a negotiated diplomatic settlement of the conflict. Here is the link to the interview.

December 3rd—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Russia’s super stealthy Kilo II class submarine Ufa which Russia’s Tass News Agency reports carries a nuclear missile with a 12,000 KM range. We will also discuss the Biden administration’s attempts to stir up trouble for Russia in Syria by supporting Al Queda rebels and in Georgia by supporting violent protests against the government. Here is a link to the interview.

December 5th—Panel Discussion with Scott Ritter on RT International’s Crosstalk program to discuss the prospects for peace in Ukraine after Trump becomes President. Here is the link to the interview.

December 5th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the just released House Intelligence Committee report detailing the US intelligence committees attempt to cover up Russia’s use of microwave Americans to target US military personnel, US intelligence personnel and embassy officials with microwave weapons since 2016. Here is a link to the interview.

December 10th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the fall of Syria to the HTS jihadist forces led by a former Al Queda and ISIS terrorist leader as well as China’s massive Joint Air-Naval Blockade exercises surrounding Taiwan, reported to be the largest such exercises in the past three decades. Here is the link to the interview.

December 17th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell to discuss my latest article on the myths of World War Two and why it was an unnecessary war as well as Biden’s attempts to get the US into World War Three with Russia before Trump takes office. Here is a link to the interview.

December 20th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the report that Biden has more than doubled the number of US troops in Syria, China’s ongoing efforts to penetrate US cyber networks in preparation for war with us and the latest revelations that Biden has been a figurehead President over the past four years with a cabal of his senior cabinet officials setting policy in his absence. Here is the link to the interview.

January 20th-Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the impact of President Trump’s inauguration on US national security policy including the war in Ukraine, Gaza and what I see as China’s plan to blockade Taiwan later this year. Here is the link to the interview.

January 21st—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell discussing a host of issues including the Biden crime family pardons, President Trump's inauguration and executive orders, and my proposal to enable the US to exert greater influence over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal. I will also discuss my new peace plan and the prospects for Trump achieve a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

Upcoming Interviews

January 30th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his noble goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is the link to the interview.

February 3rd—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on his Dialogue Works podcast to discuss my latest plan to end the war in Ukraine in days not months as well as my analysis of Trump’s 100 day peace plan and its prospects for success in ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

February 3rd—Interview with COL Rob Maness to discuss my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is the link to the interview.

February 4th—Interview with Dr. Pascal Lottaz on his Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss my latest plan to end the war in Ukraine in days not months as well as my analysis of Trump’s 100 day peace plan and its prospects for success in ending the war in Ukraine.

February 18th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell discussing my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his noble goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine.