International safety Forum in Halifax, Saturday 22 November this year The U.S. legislature delegation receives a call from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which describes the peace plan as a Russian proposal alternatively than an American initiative.
“He made it clear that we were the recipients of a proposal that was handed over to 1 of our representatives,” says Mike Rounds, a Republican Senator from South Dakota. “This is not our recommendation. This is not our peace plan. This is simply a proposal we have received, and as intermediaries we have taken action to make it available — but we have not revealed it. Leaped, she adds.
It's the beginning of a political storm.. On Saturday's post on X Rubio denies that the United States is not active in the improvement of the plan. He is assisted by State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott, publishing a sharp message on the X: “This is simply a gross lie.” But a distinct taste remains.
Glen Howard, 1 of Washington's most experienced strategists for Russia's affairs, is not in his words. He says it is simply a form of “psychic torture” for Ukrainians. We are looking backstage at the emergence of 1 of the most crucial diplomatic papers of the last decades.
According to the senators' group's report, Rubio tells them that he knows nothing about president Donald Trump's plans to halt the exchange of intelligence or military assistance if Ukraine rejects the terms.
“ He told me he knew nothing about specified a threat, ” says Rounds. — The aim was to usage what has already been publically discussed in press reports and to enable Ukrainians to respond to it.
The Secretary of State's reaction is immediate. "The peace proposal was made by the United States. It is presented as a solid framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on information provided by the Russian side, but besides on erstwhile and current information provided by Ukraine," writes X.
In a akin way, the Ombudsman says: “This is not gross. According to Secretary Rubio and the full administration, the plan was developed by the United States, involving both Russians and Ukrainians," we read on X.
The immediate inflammatory point is revealed 28-point project, reportedly developed by Kremlin brokers without Kiev's participation. Its origin immediately became the origin of a political storm.
Further string of article under video material
Document contains ultimatum for Ukraine: giving up crucial territorial areas — including areas in the east part of the Donbas region, presently controlled by Ukraine — a drastic simplification in the number of armed forces and a constitutional waiver of all hopes of joining NATO.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenski repeatedly rejected specified conditions. However, president Donald Trump openly insists on Ukraine to accept the agreement by Thursday, November 27th , which further fuels tensions both at home and abroad.
Rounds even jokes that the text “looked more like it was written in Russian”, suggesting that it came from abroad. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of fresh Hampshire calls the task “a Russian proposal [...]. Many elements of this plan are totally unacceptable."
In turn, the independent Senator Angus King, a associate of the legislature abroad Affairs Committee (SFRC), does not dress in words, comparing the proposal to the policy of concessions by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Hitler in 1938. “This rewards aggression. This is pure and simple — thunder. — There is no ethical, legal, moral or political justification for Russia’s claims against east Ukraine.
European allies are stunned
The public breakdown of Washington's diplomatic position embarrasses European allies who wonder who truly is in charge of United States policy. The spectacle in which Washington denies itself in real time rapidly echoes across the Atlantic.
For abroad US partners, confusion is not just a communication problem but besides a strategical shock.
We're stunned. erstwhile senators say 1 thing and the State Department says the other of the same day, it looks like Washington is negotiating with himself. How can Ukraine or Europe view this as a real plan?
“Anonymously speaking, 1 of the high-ranking Western diplomats in a conversation with the Kyiv Post.
European politicians are increasingly saying that Washington's position is besides vague to guide a uniform Western approach. “We are preparing a counter-proposal because, frankly, we cannot trust on an American document. Ukraine cannot negociate alone if the U.S. position is unstable, says EU diplomat informed of the spill.
— Even according to the standards of this administration, the chaos around the “peace plan” seems... It's huge. Tomorrow's talks in Geneva can bring clarity. They must do so — responds Daniel Fried, an experienced American diplomat, erstwhile Deputy Secretary of State and erstwhile US Ambassador to Poland.
Indignantness: Repentance and Condemnation
The opposition of senators evokes the content of the proposal, which goes far beyond the usual terms of the ceasefire and, in their view, moves towards complete surrender.
Five key senators, including Shaheen, King and Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, powerfully criticize the thought of Trump's co-workers. "We will not accomplish lasting peace by offering Putin further concessions and fatally weakening Ukraine's ability to defend," they say.
The confrontation between Secretary Rubio and the U.S. legislature is more than just a communication gaf; it is simply a structural crack in the heart of American abroad policy that fundamentally undermines the credibility of the United States at the minute of critical negotiations.
The question now is whether the United States is capable of presenting a coherent position.
If the senators' relation is true, the State Department misleads the planet by claiming to be the author of Russia's surrender document.
However, if the State Department's study is true, high-ranking senators publically accuse the Secretary of State of privately opposing US authoritative policy
In both cases the consequence is the same: The United States presents 2 conflicting diplomatic positions.
European allies, incapable to trust the American position, may be forced to take unilateral action. It would be an effort to fill the vacuum created by a dramatic break in Washington. And that's a risky play, as evidence of a crack in transatlantic solidarity.
Psychological Effects
Glen Howard, president of the Saratoga Foundation and 1 of Washington's most experienced Russian strategists, in addition to what is not frequently said.
In an interview with the Kyiv Post, he asks why Army Secretary Dan Driscoll was sent on a 12-hour train journey to Kiev to “make Ukraine accept a peace plan that is not definitive”. This is simply a "big effort" given the White House's proposition that the paper remains unfinished.
Howard stresses that the outline of the plan "was not even accepted by the Russians" and that this situation is simply a form of "psychic torture" for Ukrainians who are already "everyday bombarded from the air by Moscow".
It besides indicates that Vice president J.D. Vance suggested that The United States can end diplomatic efforts if the plan fails — a consequence that he says hopes will work.
Rubio, Daniel Driscoll and envoy Steve Witkoff are present in Geneva with the task of selling a "strong framework" which a large part of the United States legislature and U.S. allies sees as the Kremlin's want list.
The success of their mission will depend not so much on the merits of the document, but on their ability to convincingly present a united American front that does not truly exist.
![Tłumy na dziedzińcu Wawelu. Bezpłatny pokaz multimedialny po zmroku [ZDJĘCIA]](https://cowkrakowie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Mapping-na-Wawelu12.jpg)
![Kolędnicy wyszli na ulice Krakowa. Miasto na chwilę zwolniło [ZDJĘCIA]](https://cowkrakowie.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Kolednicy-w-Krakowie15-1.jpg)
