A controversial 28-point proposal for ending the Russia-Ukraine war has ignited a firestorm in Washington after being leaked to the public. The document, which multiple critics have labeled a "Russian wish-list," was reportedly developed during informal talks in Miami.
The Origins of the Controversial Plan
The plan was allegedly fleshed out by Jared Kushner, former President Donald Trump's son-in-law, alongside Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev. The leak, which occurred in late November 2025, prompted immediate backlash. The situation was further complicated by revelations that the leaked document was a poor translation from the original Russian, distorting its intent.
In a closed-door briefing with senators, Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially described the proposal as a "wish-list for the Russians" and clarified it was "not the administration’s plan." Rubio later attempted to walk back these comments as he traveled to Geneva for peace talks, but the damage to the plan's credibility was already done.
A Shift in Diplomatic Strategy
The political chaos surrounding the leak appears to have triggered a significant shift in diplomatic responsibility. Amid the fallout, Secretary Rubio successfully pried control of the Ukraine portfolio away from envoy Steve Witkoff. By Tuesday, Rubio revealed that the original plan was effectively moot, announcing that a whole new plan was now on the table.
This development is seen by many analysts as a positive step, as the original 28-point proposal contained provisions widely considered contrary to American and allied interests. The leaked plan would have:
- Ceded the entire Donbas region to Russia, territory it has not fully secured through military means.
- Provided Russia with significant sanctions relief.
- Invited Russia back into the G8.
- Politically and militarily hobbled Ukraine.
- Framed the U.S. as a mere "mediator" between Russia and NATO, a strategic goal long sought by the Kremlin to divide America from its allies.
The America First Debate and Why Helping Ukraine Matters
The leaked plan also fueled the ongoing debate over what an "America First" foreign policy truly means. Proponents of the slogan often argue that providing aid to Ukraine is not in the national interest. However, a compelling case can be made that countering Russian aggression is a strategic imperative for the United States.
Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, represents a direct threat to American security and global stability. It actively allies with adversaries like China, engages in cyberattacks on Western infrastructure, and runs influence campaigns to sow discord. NATO itself identifies Russia as "the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security."
Beyond cold strategy, there is a moral argument. The brutal invasion has cost an estimated hundreds of thousands of lives and seen tens of thousands of Ukrainian children forcibly taken to Russia. U.S. national honour is also at stake, given the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which provided Ukraine with security assurances in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal.
From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, supporting Ukraine with weapons and intelligence—not troops—has been effective. It has degraded Russian military power, crippled its economy, and limited its ability to cause mischief in other regions like Syria. The original peace plan would have thrown a lifeline to the Putin regime, rewarding its aggression. The hope now is that Secretary Rubio's new strategy will be more firmly aligned with American interests and the cause of a sovereign Ukraine.
