A peace plan, largely drafted without Ukrainian input and containing unfavorable terms, has emerged just as President Zelenskyy's government faces its biggest corruption crisis. This timing suggests the US may be using Ukraine's internal turmoil to push for otherwise unacceptable concessions.
Related Insights
The US foreign policy establishment is not driven by partisan ideology but by strategic interests. It will fund contradictory groups—from right-wing Ukrainian nationalists to progressive artists—if they serve the immediate goal of destabilizing a region to secure economic or military advantages.
US agencies and NATO fund a network of NGOs that act as a cohesive "swarm." This swarm delivers threats of political instability or economic ruin to foreign leaders, effectively coercing them to align with US interests without direct government intervention.
The Ukrainian President's office tried to neutralize anti-corruption bodies by passing a bill to place them under a pliant prosecutor, which would have killed the investigation. However, thousands of citizens protested, forcing President Zelenskyy to reverse the decision, an act an investigator credited with saving the entire operation.
Officials in Ukraine's state nuclear energy company were recorded planning to skimp on protecting the energy grid from Russian missile strikes. They prioritized pocketing millions in kickbacks over national security, leading to devastating consequences when unprotected locations were later hit.
In Ukraine's corruption scandal, pressure is mounting on President Zelenskyy to fire his powerful, unelected chief of staff, Andrei Yermak. This highlights how such "gatekeeper" advisors can become political liabilities and scapegoats, embodying systemic issues and absorbing public anger meant for the administration.
When the investigation reached the President's inner circle, the government machine mobilized against the anti-corruption bodies. Ukraine's security services arrested several detectives involved in the probe, accusing them of collaborating with Russia. This tactic attempts to reframe a legitimate investigation as a threat to national security.
The proposed peace plan negotiated by private business figures asks Ukraine to cede heavily fortified territory that Russia has failed to capture despite years of fighting and immense casualties. This is not a peace deal but a demand for surrender that rewards Russian aggression by effectively giving away strategic land for free.
Leaked communications reveal a conscious strategy to manipulate Donald Trump in negotiations. By advising Russian counterparts to begin calls by praising Trump's past deals, negotiators like Witkoff leverage his psychological vulnerabilities to steer conversations toward a favorable outcome.
Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.
The recent uptick in global conflicts, from Ukraine to the Caribbean, is not a series of isolated events. It's a direct result of adversaries perceiving American weakness and acting on the historical principle that nations expand their influence until they are met with sufficient counter-force.
