Ben Wolf
Mar 2, 2026
As the U.S. pushes for a year-end ceasefire, internal strife on Capitol Hill threatens the proposal. This piece explores the high stakes of territorial concessions and the future of global security.
The pursuit of peace is often confused with the pursuit of a deal. The former is a condition of stability; the latter is merely a signature on a page. This Thanksgiving week, the U.S. administration appears poised to test the difference between the two in Ukraine, promoting a peace framework that has ignited a firestorm of debate from Kyiv to Capitol Hill. Many have argued that the proposed "peace plan,” which initially included a 28-point draft that was later trimmed down due to internal and external criticism, is more akin to capitulation than to a compromise. The framework calls for Ukraine to cede a significant chunk of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas, in return for a ceasefire. It must be mentioned that this doesn’t guarantee an end to the conflict; it merely provides a temporary pause and gives Russia time to regroup.
The plan further isolates Ukraine on the international front by requiring it to give up its bid to join NATO and reduce the number of its armed forces, in addition to making territorial concessions. As if this wasn’t enough to sweeten the pot for Moscow, the proposal suggests lifting sanctions and potentially redirecting frozen Russian assets, a move that has alienated European partners who were not consulted.
The deal is being led by a circle of trusted Trump loyalists, including Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and special envoy Steve Witkoff. With the timetable for agreement pushed from Thanksgiving to the end of the year, there is an obvious sense of frustration about meeting deadlines. However, the haste to close sends a message that could jeopardize the deal.
As the Atlantic Council points out, while Washington presses for a settlement, Vladimir Putin is stepping up his “reconquest” activities and continuing infrastructure bombing attacks to stifle Ukrainian resistance. His irregular willingness to engage in bilateral peace talks, experts argue, merely stems from a desire to stall further sanctions.
The Republican alliance in Washington has been shattered by the peace plan. Prominent conservatives like Mitch McConnell, Roger Wicker, and Lindsey Graham have rejected what they regard as a capitulation to Russia, favoring stricter sanctions and rejecting territorial compromises. The Trump administration’s pursuit of the deal has been hampered by this internal strife, as, to draw a metaphor, it is difficult to twist Zelenskyy’s arm when one’s own party is handing him a splint.
History suggests that peace agreements that ignore the victim's security requirements usually favor the aggressor. If an agreement can be reached and the current framework is implemented as reported, yes, it may very well stop the shooting for a time. But, by deferring to a settlement that so clearly benefits Russia, what will that tell them about future conquests? Who’s to say that Russian imperialism ends here? Most importantly, how can we ensure that the region's violence comes to an end for good?