Developments over the weekend in Washington regarding President Donald Trump’s proposed 28-point peace plan for Ukraine have raised significant concerns about potential Russian influence in U.S. policy decisions. Reports indicate that the document, rather than being a U.S. initiative, may largely consist of Russian proposals, possibly translated and presented by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. This revelation has prompted discussions among European leaders about the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
At the recent G20 Summit in Johannesburg, key figures including Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, and Friedrich Merz, the Chancellor of Germany, engaged in urgent discussions about the crisis. Trump’s ultimatum to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding acceptance of the American-backed plan by the upcoming U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, has sparked reactions from various quarters, with some leaders reportedly struggling to grasp the full ramifications of Trump’s alignment with Russian interests.
The architect behind the latest Kremlin moves appears to be Kirill Dmitriev, a Harvard-educated adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin and head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund. Dmitriev has been actively meeting with Witkoff, leveraging the latter’s inexperience in international diplomacy. Witkoff himself has stated that he is enhancing his understanding of global affairs through Netflix documentaries, though it remains unclear if this approach has equipped him to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes effectively.
Following the backlash, attempts were made by U.S. officials to clarify the origins of the peace plan. Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Geneva for emergency discussions with European foreign ministers, indicating the urgency of the situation. Yet, confusion ensued within the Trump administration regarding the document’s authorship. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota revealed that Rubio informed him the plan had originated from Moscow, describing it as a proposal delivered to Witkoff rather than an American initiative. Shortly thereafter, State Department Deputy Spokesman Timothy Piggott contradicted Rounds, asserting that the plan was authored by the U.S. with contributions from both Russia and Ukraine.
In Ukraine, the Kyiv Independent has accused Witkoff of operating a “shadow operation” within the White House, potentially sidelining pro-Ukraine officials. The newspaper suggested that Rubio was taken by surprise by the peace plan, and even claimed that Vice President JD Vance had been supportive of Witkoff’s ongoing efforts.
European leaders now face the challenge of addressing Trump’s approach to the peace plan. As discussions about a potential urgent visit to Washington unfold, the implications of Russia’s influence over U.S. policy are being scrutinized more closely. On Saturday, Trump seemed to soften his position, stating that if Zelensky rejected the plan, he could “continue to fight his little heart out.” Whether Trump will follow through on threats to cut military assistance remains uncertain.
As more information emerges, U.S. foreign policy experts are expressing alarm over the apparent closeness between U.S. and Russian governmental interests. Phillips O’Brien, a historian and professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, characterized the situation on social media, suggesting that the U.S. is now adopting significant parts of Russian proposals as its own. His remarks highlight a troubling trend that could have far-reaching consequences for international relations and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
