During a call with a bipartisan group of senators attending the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly described the controversial 28-point Ukrainian peace plan as a “leaked” Russian “wish list.”
According to Politico, Rubio “assured them the document does not represent the Trump administration’s position.” He told the senators that “the Americans did not instigate the proposal.”
“He made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” Republican Sen. Mike Rounds (SD) told Politico. “It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked.”
Despite media reports that President Donald Trump threatened to suspend or scale back intelligence-sharing or military assistance if Ukraine rejected the terms, lawmakers on the call said Rubio told them he was “unaware” of any such plans.
“He told me … he was not aware of that threat being made,” Rounds added. “The intent was to take what had now been publicly discussed in news reports and to allow the Ukrainians the opportunity to respond back to it.”
Politico reported that Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), who participated in the call, believes the plan “included elements Ukraine and U.S. allies would never accept, including restrictions on NATO adding new members and the size of Ukraine’s military.”
Shaheen said, “There is so much in that plan that is totally unacceptable if we’re going to have a real negotiation that is going to actually produce a peace deal for Ukraine and Russia.”
Yet, the Associated Press reported that a state department spokesperson later denied the senators’ accounts of the call.
And, in a Saturday night post on X, Rubio said the plan was indeed “authored by the U.S.”
The call came as Rubio was en route to Geneva, where he, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff are scheduled to meet with Ukrainian advisers on Sunday.
The plan has drawn broad criticism for being tilted in Russia’s favor. The terms are viewed as favoring Russia because, in reality, they do favor Russia.
Reports that Trump gave Ukraine a Thanksgiving deadline to accept the plan or risk losing U.S. support are equally disturbing.
Perhaps that’s why, when Trump was asked at the White House on Saturday whether the terms were nonnegotiable, he replied that the plan was not final. He said, “No, not my final. We’d like to get to peace. It should’ve happened a long time ago.”
The Wall Street Journal published a point-by-point analysis of the proposal on Saturday, which is worth a look. The plan would require:
Kyiv [to] cede territory to Russia, block its ambitions to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and cap the size of its military amid other major economic and political concessions to Moscow.Ukraine would receive funds for reconstruction and assurances from the U.S. that it would discuss with allies providing military assistance and other steps if Russia broke the agreement and attacked again. Those commitments would fall short of a European-led “reassurance force” stationed within the country to deter further Russian attacks.
The Journal reported that the plan was “drafted in secret by Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff in consultation with Kremlin confidant Kirill Dmitriev,” which might explain why it appears so one-sided.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s engagement in this latest effort to “end the war” is widely seen as a strategic maneuver rather than a genuine pursuit of peace. By appearing open to negotiations, he buys valuable time to regroup his forces, repair his military infrastructure, and reposition troops for his next deadly assault on Ukraine.
This tactic aligns with a longstanding pattern in which the Kremlin uses supposed diplomacy to ease pressure, stall international support for Ukraine, and prepare for future offensives. Far from signaling a real commitment to peace, Putin’s involvement suggests an attempt to reset the battlefield on his own terms and pave the way for the next phase of hostilities.
What is required now is a full-scale pressure campaign against Russia. The U.S. and its European allies must intensify sanctions on the Kremlin and provide Ukraine with the advanced weaponry necessary to bring Putin to the negotiating table in earnest.
We will soon see whether the talks currently underway in Geneva lead to any meaningful changes. As it stands, the proposed deal offers little that is genuinely constructive for Ukraine. In its current form, it risks undermining Kyiv’s position rather than strengthening it and falls far short of what is needed to secure a just and lasting peace.
According to Axios‘ Barak Ravid, the first to report on the plan last week, sources familiar with the negotiations in Geneva inform him that U.S. and Ukrainian officials “have been making progress toward a possible agreement on Washington’s proposed peace plan.”
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY