Secret conversations, discreet meetings and an alleged peace plan with the signature of Washington, DC and Moscow have reopened the debate among experts: is everything accelerating towards an outcome? Or, on the contrary, is Ukraine approaching the most difficult phase of the war?
Diana Soller does not believe that the announcement, announced this Wednesday, means a natural acceleration of the peace process. Rather, according to the International Relations specialist, we will be facing the unexpected result of secret negotiations between the United States and Russia, which will have given rise to a peace plan “in which Ukraine loses on a large scale.”
“What seems to be inadvertently accelerating are the talks between the US and Russia, which gave rise to a peace plan in which Ukraine loses on a large scale, except in security guarantees and a supposed peace architecture that includes Europe”, he explains.
For Diana Soller, Ukraine today finds itself “in a much more complicated situation” than just a few months ago. Ukrainian authorities will be “alarmed” by the diplomatic moves of Washington, DC, which, according to the CNN Portugal commentator, appears to have returned to its initial strategy: supporting a solution imposed on Ukraine, with significant territorial concessions to Ukraine.
“Ukraine is the weakest link. Europe does not have the capacity to support it alone and, if the US cuts NATO’s weapons program or intelligence sharing, Ukraine will have no room for maneuver”, he points out, referring to a plan it has in which almost everyone responds to Russian demands.
In this scenario, Kiev would have only two options, in the expert’s opinion: accept an agreement that would be equivalent to “a profound defeat”, even with security guarantees, or reject the plan and enter a new phase of the war, more irregular, more underground, a guerrilla war and sabotage “until the moment it can no longer resist”.
Lieutenant General Rafael Martins reinforces the idea that this plan is not the work of a sudden diplomatic reversal. On the contrary, he believes it has been in preparation for months.
“This plan didn’t start two weeks ago, it comes a long time ago. We don’t know what conversation Putin had with Trump on that three-minute car ride. The references continue to be what was agreed in Alaska”, he says, remembering the bilateral meeting that brought together the two leaders and in which, as in this plan now presented, Ukraine was left out.
According to the military expert, there may have been “staged delays and delays” to place Russia in a tactical, strategic and operationally advantageous position. And today, he says, Moscow is precisely in that position.
In his opinion, territorially, militarily and diplomatically, Russia would be able to impose demands including the formalization of the cession of Donbass and parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. “With some flexibility”, he admits, but always with Kiev as the defeated side.
“As long as we do not know the essence of this package, namely the future US-Ukraine and US-Russia relations, we can only make this value judgment: defeat is imminent”, he adds, recalling Volodymyr Zelensky’s list of demands, which is left in the dark with this proposal.
Another controversial aspect of the plan is the alleged participation of Steve Witkoff, US special envoy, and businesspeople close to the Kremlin who acted as informal negotiators. For international politics expert Marcos Farias Ferreira, this is not just credible. It is also symptomatic of the way this war is being managed at the highest level.
“These are the deciding factors. That’s what makes it so difficult to design effective opposition to US pressure and its way of solving problems.”
What is at stake, he explains, is the American logic of “peace through strength”. Accepting it in one conflict opens the door to applying it in others. And Russia, through discreet channels built by figures like Kirill Dmitriev, will have achieved something “extraordinary”: putting the responsibility for the decision back in the Ukrainian camp and not in the Kremlin, he considers.
“European diplomacy, although fully mobilized, was unable to dissuade Trump from this assumption. They sold his soul, did what he wanted and did not get, in return, a fairer plan to end the war.”
For Marcos Farias Ferreira, this reveals a structural failure: the “debacle of European diplomacy”, the strategic error accumulated over months and even “political irresponsibility”.
