French media: Is the US "28 points" in line with Russia's "wish list"?

EU, US, and Ukrainian leaders held talks in Geneva on Sunday regarding the 28-point proposal from the US to end the war in Ukraine. Previously, the "US plan" imposed by the White House on Kyiv was criticized for being overly favorable to the Kremlin, with critics even calling it a "28 articles" that betrayed Ukraine. Late on Sunday in Geneva, it was reported that US Secretary of State Rubio expressed "very optimistic" about reaching an agreement soon, and Ukrainian negotiator Yermak said there had been "very good progress." Although no details were provided, it is difficult to imagine from both sides' statements that the future agreement would repeat the "28 articles."

Within just 24 hours, contradictory accounts emerged around the "28 articles" in the United States. First, Trump's ambiguous statements gave the impression that the "28 articles" were not the final plan. Just hours earlier, he had issued a final ultimatum to Kyiv, but on Saturday, when asked by the media, he said, "No, this is not my final plan."

However, on Sunday, Trump rehashed his old accusations from February in the White House Oval Office, accusing Zelenskyy of being ungrateful. He accused Ukraine's "leaders" of having "zero gratitude" for America's efforts, and Europe "continued to buy Russian oil." This means that Trump did not change his ultimatum to Ukraine, that on Thanksgiving Day, they must accept his "plan," or else Kyiv would lose all American aid. When asked what the consequences would be if Zelenskyy rejected the "28 articles," Trump said, "Then he can continue to fight with his meager power."

Trump is vacillating and angry, saying the "28 articles" are not the final plan while berating Zelenskyy for being ungrateful. However, what is truly bewildering is the remarks made by a group of U.S. senators on Saturday. They stated that Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Rubio had told them that the 28-point plan "was not the final plan."

Republican Senator Lanz, speaking at the International Security Forum in Halifax, Canada, said, "The U.S. government is not responsible for the document released in its current form... they just want to use it as a starting point." Rubio "clearly told us that we are only recipients of the recommendations," which was neither our recommendation nor our peace plan... The senator also added, "This document looks more like it was written in Russian," referring to some expressions in the document that seemed to be directly translated from Russian.

Maine Independent Senator Angus King also said that Rubio had told them the plan "was not the government's plan," but rather "a wish list from the Russians." "It encourages aggression. That's it. There is no moral, legal, ethical, or political justification for Russia's claims over the eastern territories of Ukraine," the senators attending the Halifax meeting included members from both parties in the United States, who are known for supporting continued aid to Ukraine.

Secretary of State Rubio came out to quell the fire, denying that he had ever said these things to the senators, stating, "The peace proposal was drafted by the United States. It was presented as a solid framework for ongoing negotiations," based on the contributions of Russia. It was also built upon the contributions of Ukraine in the past and present. However, looking at the "28 articles," the possibility of being based on Russia's contributions is high, but it is hard to see how much it is based on Ukraine's contributions.

The U.S. "28 articles" were initially disclosed by the media, and there have been doubts about whether it is the "28 articles" of the U.S. or Russia, because each article is a demand on Ukraine: not only requiring it to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, but also to give up the east, cut its forces in half, and not deploy long-range missiles, etc. However, Vice President Vance, who is part of the anti-Ukraine faction in the U.S. government, wrote, "All criticisms of the peace framework that the government is trying to establish are either based on a misunderstanding of the framework or a distortion of certain key realities on the ground. There is a misconception that as long as more money, more weapons, or more sanctions are implemented, victory is imminent. Diplomats or failed politicians living in a fantasy world will not achieve peace. Smart people living in the real world can achieve peace."

Trump's contradictions, the statements of a group of senators, Rubio's reversal, and Vance's denial reflect deep divisions within the U.S. government on how to end the war. Even vague statements reveal a certain degree of opposition between the new isolationist trend that is hostile to Ukraine and NATO, and the traditional camp that is skeptical of Russia and more inclined to cooperate with Europeans.

A considerable number of U.S. Republicans remain hostile to abandoning Ukraine and allowing Russia to win. On Friday, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal strongly criticized the peace plan: "Mr. Trump... obviously tired of dealing with the war. Pacifying Mr. Putin will haunt the rest of his presidential term. If Mr. Trump believes that American voters hate war, let him see for himself how much they hate the things that tarnish America's reputation. A bad agreement in Ukraine will show America's enemies that they can get what they want through force, nuclear blackmail, or lobbying, making America lose interest in the issue itself."

Trump's former National Security Advisor Bolton was more scathing. He called the Russians "unlikely to draft a better treaty than this." "It is equivalent to selling out Ukraine!"

Source: rfi

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1849626831494156/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.