WASHINGTON — While multiple reports emerged Tuesday that Ukraine and the US have a tentative agreement on a way to end the war with Russia, the single biggest question is what any forthcoming security guarantee will look like, according to analysts from the Atlantic Council.
The Trump administration shocked the world last week when it delivered a 28-point “peace plan” to Ukraine, which included demands that Kyiv cede territory to Russia that Moscow does not currently control and would ban Ukraine from joining NATO, among other controversial provisions that some US lawmakers described as amounting to a Russian “wish list.”
A flurry of diplomatic activity followed, leading to high-level meetings in Geneva and Abu Dhabi. Today, US and Ukrainian officials indicated they had smoothed over some of the most acute sticking points. But some remain to be worked out, and that’s before Moscow formally has its say.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X, “There are a few delicate, but not insurmountable, details that must be sorted out and will require further talks between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States.”
As talks continue, a group of Atlantic Council experts gave an update on the situation this morning. While noting that no one has seen the now-19-point plan in full, there is a sense that this could be a turning point in the war.
Daniel Fried, a former US ambassador to Poland and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, summed up most of the reaction to the plan by saying, “The initial draft was a hot mess.”
But he expressed hope that the “outline of a sustainable deal is there. The chaos, the rush, the headlines are distractions … this is not the first time a US administration has engaged in rushed diplomacy.”
Of course, despite how negotiations have felt at times, this is not a peace plan between the US and Ukraine but rather one between Ukraine and Russia. And in that regard, there was widespread skepticism that Moscow will accept anything short of complete capitulation to its demands.
“From [the] Ukrainian perspective, they don’t see this 19-point plan as something that Russia will accept,” said Myroslava Gongadze, a nonresident fellow in Ukraine, who noted she spent last night in a missile shelter due to Russian attacks. “However, the point of this exercise was not exactly to make an agreement, but to throw out that 28 point plan and put some Ukrainian interest in a possible negotiation and show that Ukraine is really willing and wants to discuss a peace.”
The biggest question, the experts agreed, was what a security guarantee would look like if Ukraine is not able to join NATO. It will be important for it to have real safety for Kyiv baked in, from both the US and Europe. The original 28-point plan did discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, but in a vague way.
“From my perspective, the essential question we must ask here is security guarantees. Who will be giving that those guarantees? Who is being held accountable?” Gongadze said. “So if the answers are weak, and [it’s] not clear, then it’s setting up Ukraine for another crisis.”
Fried noted that any security guarantee needs to include both the US and Europe.
“Whether the US works with the Coalition of the Willing or NATO, or both, security guarantees are going to have to be flushed out in a way that is credible,” Fried said. “Putin will hate them. He will try to hold this agreement hostage to their those being dropped. So in the end, Trump is going to have to stare down Putin to get his deal in any kind of decent form.”
Leslie Shedd, a nonresident fellow with the Council, noted that depending on how a security guarantee is written, it may require ratification from the US Senate. But even if that is not legally required, it would send an important signal if Congress showed its support.
“Having both the House and the Senate weigh in might even be a stronger message than just ratifying it as a treaty through the Senate. I think that that is a crucial step. I also think that it would pass with significant bipartisan support in both chambers,” she said. “There remains a large chunk of people on both sides of the aisle that are very frustrated with Russia, that do not believe that Russia is our friend, and so I do think that there would be support for that.”
The Financial Times reported that the deal will cap Ukraine’s military at 800,000. While a cap on forces would seem to be a win for Russia, there are serious questions about whether Ukraine could maintain a force that large for any stretch of time outside of active war anyway.
Army Secretary Emerges As Key Player
Throughout this process, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has emerged as a key interlocutor, a rare sight for a service secretary. Driscoll delivered the plan to Ukraine, moved on to Geneva for negotiations with European nations, and then today traveled to Abu Dhabi for direct consultations with the Russians and Ukrainians.
Driscoll’s role in this negotiation is unlikely to quite the rumor mill in DC that has tagged him as a next defense secretary should Pete Hegseth leave the Pentagon in the future.
Shedd called Driscoll “a rising star the administration,” who has “earned the trust of the president” to the point they’re letting him take part in negotiations.
“I agree that it is certainly unconventional, but President Trump tends to run an unconventional cabinet, an unconventional administration. And you know, I think that there are often very good parts to that,” Shedd said. “You don’t want to keep sending the same people back over and over again if you feel like there’s been a logjam in negotiation.”
Fried agreed that Driscoll seems to have juice within the administration, and said ultimately it’s a good thing he’s there as a result.
However, “I would add that you need somebody with Driscoll who understands the details, because the Russians can be expected to throw various curveballs disguised as sweeteners. You need somebody who can detect the stink bombs in the nice wrapping.”
