Ukraine War Briefing: Defeating Russia an ‘Illusion’, Says Putin, as He Welcomes Trump Deal
As of November 22, 2025, the near-four-year conflict in Ukraine has reached a critical, and perhaps perilous, diplomatic juncture. Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly cast doubt on Kyiv’s war aims, declaring that Ukrainian and European hopes of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia on the battlefield are an ‘illusion’. His cautious welcome of a controversial 28-point peace plan, reportedly brokered between the United States and the Russian Federation without significant Ukrainian or European input, signals a dangerous inflection point in the war’s trajectory.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, conversely, has framed this moment as “one of the most difficult moments in our history”, warning that accepting the United States-backed proposal would leave his nation “without freedom, dignity and justice”, as it demands major territorial and military concessions. The plan, which has drawn sharp rebuke from Kyiv and many European capitals who view it as a capitulation, attempts to codify a settlement that reflects the maximalist demands Moscow has pursued since the February 2022 invasion.
The detailed framework of the proposal, which has been subject to leaks and confirmation by Western media, is now the central focus of international anxiety. Its provisions are not merely tactical adjustments but appear deeply interwoven with Moscow’s long-standing ideological justifications for the war and carry profound geopolitical ramifications that extend far beyond the current demarcation lines. The coming days, as President Trump has reportedly imposed a Thursday deadline for Kyiv’s response, will determine whether Ukraine succumbs to this duress or chooses the path of continued, potentially isolated, resistance.
The Broader Ideological Underpinnings and Rhetorical Maneuvers
The specific architecture of the 28-point plan reveals an attempt to satisfy deeply ingrained ideological narratives held by the Russian leadership, which have served as the primary justification for the full-scale invasion. This is not simply a territorial negotiation; it is a political transaction designed to validate the Kremlin’s perception of history and state legitimacy.
The Incorporated Stipulation Against “Nazi Ideology”
A particularly revealing clause within the twenty-eight points calls for the explicit rejection and prohibition of “all Nazi ideology and activities” within Ukraine. This demand is a direct, almost mechanical, incorporation of the Kremlin’s long-standing, unsubstantiated propaganda point that the Ukrainian government is fundamentally fascist or controlled by neo-Nazis, a central pretext for the war, which Putin alleges is an effort to “denazify” the country.
The inclusion of this clause serves the explicit purpose of forcing Kyiv into a rhetorical alignment with Moscow’s spurious justification for aggression. By compelling the democratically elected government of Ukraine to formally outlaw a concept that, in reality, enjoys minimal support—with far-right parties garnering only 2% in the 2019 parliamentary elections—the plan lends a veneer of international legitimacy to Putin’s foundational lie. Furthermore, some analysts suggest this element is an attempt to build up Russia’s claim to a narrative of “Russian cultural identity within Ukraine”. The inherent irony, and the source of Ukrainian alarm, is that this is demanded of the nation under invasion, while no corresponding requirement is placed upon the aggressor state to undertake similar ideological purification.
The Asymmetrical Demand for Immediate Ukrainian Elections
In a supposed measure to legitimize the resulting post-conflict political structure, the plan insists that Ukraine must hold national elections within one hundred days of a ceasefire being agreed upon. This demand is not merely procedural; it is a critically asymmetrical political maneuver designed to maximize leverage over a war-weary Kyiv while insulating Moscow’s entrenched authoritarianism from scrutiny.
Crucially, as critics have repeatedly noted, no corresponding requirement is placed upon the Russian Federation to undertake any similar democratization process, such as holding genuinely competitive, internationally observed elections. This places the current Russian President, leading a deepening authoritarian regime, at zero risk of domestic political upheaval stemming from the peace agreement. For Ukraine, the imposition of a snap election while the country is simultaneously forced to relinquish substantial territory, demobilize a portion of its hard-won military, and absorb the political shockwaves of a coerced peace, threatens to destabilize its political system from within, a situation compounded by ongoing internal political turbulence and corruption scandals. The US administration’s timeline, demanding an answer by the end of the week, further increases this political pressure, suggesting that President Zelenskyy’s back is against the wall, as one analyst noted.
Analysis of Long-Term Geopolitical Ramifications
The signing of such a deal, or even the mere acceptance of its principles under the current threat of American diplomatic withdrawal, carries implications that extend far beyond the territorial concessions on the current demarcation lines. It is a recalibration of global security architecture that risks rewarding military aggression on an unprecedented scale.
The Potential for Renewed Russian Aggression Under a Frozen Conflict
By compelling Ukraine to surrender strategically vital defensive positions and unilaterally diminish its military strength, the deal lays the comprehensive groundwork for future Russian aggression. The primary mechanism for this future threat is found in the territorial and military limitations imposed solely on Ukraine.
The plan mandates that Ukraine withdraw its forces from the non-occupied parts of the Donbas region—Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts—and recognize the entirety of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk as de facto Russian territory. The freezing of the line of contact in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts codifies these gains into a new, internationally recognized *status quo*. This concession is strategically devastating because it includes the Donbas “Fortress Belt”—the fortified defensive line encompassing cities like Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Kostiantynivka, and Druzhkivka—which has served as the main defensive bastion since 2014 and is vital for regional defense, industry, and logistics. Russia has been unsuccessfully attempting to breach this belt for over a decade, an effort that would likely take several more years of attrition warfare to achieve by force. The deal essentially hands Russia this hard-won prize, sparing Moscow the time, effort, and manpower required for a costly military victory.
In parallel, the plan requires Ukraine to reduce the size of its Armed Forces to a maximum of 600,000 personnel. This is a significant reduction from the estimated active strength of approximately 880,000 to 1.26 million personnel that Ukraine fields as of 2025, a force described as the continent’s largest and most experienced army. This mandatory demobilization leaves Russia in a significantly superior military position should Putin decide to resume his drive toward Kyiv or other strategic centers after sanctions are lifted and Russia has had time to rearm. Furthermore, the provision granting full amnesty to all parties for wartime actions removes any future accountability, which further incentivizes future belligerence, as the slate would be wiped clean.
The Erosion of Collective Security Frameworks
A peace agreement achieved through a direct ultimatum from a great power—in this case, the United States—to a smaller, dependent nation effectively signals the profound weakness of the current international order. It suggests that security guarantees are not based on international law or binding treaties but are conditional upon the domestic political climate and priorities of the guarantor nation.
The plan explicitly states that Ukraine will be constitutionally forbidden from joining NATO, and NATO, in turn, will enshrine a statute permanently barring Ukraine’s future admission. While a vague, US-led security guarantee is offered in return, many European allies expressed alarm that this guarantee lacks the robust, Article 5-style commitment that underpins the entire collective defense structure. The manner in which the US bypassed Europe in drafting the terms has unsettled key partners like France, Germany, and the UK, who stressed their unwavering support but whose counsel appears to have been sidelined in the final proposal. This unilateral approach undermines the decades-old structure of alliances and collective defense mechanisms, suggesting to other regional powers that reliance on the American security umbrella is subject to the whims of a single presidential administration.
The Precedent Set for Future Aggressor States
Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict sets the definitive global precedent for the next generation of territorial disputes. If a nation can initiate a large-scale war of aggression, seize substantial, strategically vital territory, and then leverage a diplomatic agreement—under the threat of losing vital international support—to have those gains formally recognized, it effectively rewards the aggression.
This scenario signals to potential revisionist powers worldwide that military force remains a viable, and potentially profitable, tool of statecraft. The inclusion of sanctions relief and the reported reintegration of Russia into the G8—from which it was excluded following the initial seizure of Crimea—only strengthens this signal, demonstrating that the geopolitical costs of such actions can be negotiated away at the expense of the victim. This creates an inherently less stable global environment for all smaller, sovereign states who depend on the principle of territorial integrity. Analysts have openly compared this proposed settlement to the Munich Agreement of 1938, suggesting that appeasement in the face of clear military objectives only postpones, and potentially escalates, future conflict. The choice facing Kyiv is framed by many as not being between peace and war, but between fighting Russia now on better terms or fighting Russia later from a position of guaranteed military and political weakness.
The coming days will determine whether Ukraine accepts this perilous bargain—one that validates ideological warfare and penalizes national defense—or chooses the path of continued resistance, sustained by a fragile, but perhaps more morally sound, foundation of national dignity and the right to self-determination.