Ukrainian and American officials met over the weekend in Switzerland to discuss a 28-point proposal floated last week by the White House to end conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The plan would require Kyiv to cede more territory, accept curbs on its military and bar it from ever joining NATO, conditions Kyiv has long rejected as tantamount to surrender. President Trump did set a Thursday deadline for Ukraine to accept a deal, but now says that timeline is flexible.
Journalists covering the negotiations are welcome to use quotes from two Northwestern University experts or reach out for interviews.
"Almost nothing in the leaked drafts is set in stone - even if one of them ends up being signed. Much of the public commentary treats the leaked negotiation blueprint as a fixed plan, but that fundamentally misunderstands how such frameworks work. Even if a draft were signed, almost all of provisions in the final agreement could still be renegotiated, amended, or withdrawn."
"The larger issue is that these negotiations are not yet “ripe.” Neither side currently perceives the costs of fighting as outweighing the potential gains of continued war. Without that mutual perception, no draft - however detailed - will stop the conflict."
Ian Kelly is Ambassador (ret.) in Residence at Northwestern, where he teaches international studies and Slavic languages and literature. He previously served as U.S. ambassador to Georgia, ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, State Department spokesperson, and director of the Office of Russian Affairs in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at
ian.kelly@northwestern.edu or by contacting Stephanie Kulke at
stephanie.kulke@northwestern.edu.
“The most pernicious provisions of the U.S.-authored ‘28-point plan’ would require Ukraine to reduce its military capacity by a third, forgo cooperation with NATO, and de facto cede significant territory to Russia. Such moves would essentially reward Russia for its brutal aggression. Conceding sovereignty or territory to a stronger power would signal a dangerous return to a world where might makes right.
“Before this administration, the U.S. would consult with NATO allies before releasing a plan regarding European security. Also without precedent is the idea that Canada and the European allies were forced to issue their own counter proposal — this time presumably without U.S. input. While it seems that Secretary Rubio was able to walk back yesterday some of the more pro-Russian provisions, the damage has already been done to the once-traditional transatlantic solidarity in the face of Russian aggression.”