Trump Peace Plan: Hard Trade for "red lines". How can the United States put pressure on Zelensky?

Statement by the Deputy Permanent Representative Ukraine at UN Christina Gayovyshynmade at the Security Council meeting, became an important marker of a new stage around the proposed USA peace plan.

Kyiv confirmed receipt of the document and readiness to work on it, but at the same time clearly outlined the boundaries of what was permissible. This is not a refusal or an agreement, but a starting position for a complex and painful bargaining, in which each player has his own red lines and his own price for peace.

What message did Ukraine send?

Publicly Ukraine demonstrates constructiveness: acknowledges receipt of the draft plan from Washingtondeclares its readiness for “meaningful negotiations, including at the level of leaders” and emphasizes the desire for a “just end to the war.” In diplomatic language, this means that Kyiv does not want to be a party blocking allied initiatives and seeks to maintain support West.

However, in the same speech Gayovyshyn outlined the fundamental red lines:

1. no recognition, in any form, of territories Ukrainetemporarily occupied Russiaas Russian;
2. no restrictions on the right Ukraine for self-defense and for numbers and capabilities Armed Forces of Ukraine;
3. no encroachment on the country’s sovereign right to choose alliances and alliancesincluding the prospect of interaction with NATO;
4. maintaining the principle “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe.”

Thus, Kyiv follows the classic negotiating logic: enter the processbut immediately fix the maximum frame for yourself. This allows, on the one hand, not to conflict with USAon the other hand, to prevent partners from referring to the “consent of Ukraine” when discussing points unacceptable to it.

Bargaining or hard refusal: what is behind Kyiv’s rhetoric

Despite the rigidity of the wording, the position Ukraine does not constitute a categorical rejection of the plan. Given its almost complete dependence on Western military and financial assistance, Kyiv cannot simply reject the initiative Washington. This is about trying to maximize your negotiating price without breaking ties with your main ally.

Kyiv’s real position is based on four principleswhich are perceived as issues of state survival:

1. territorial integritywithout de jure recognition of any territorial changes in favor Russia;
2. maintaining control over numbers, structure and potential Ukrainian army no external limits;
3. the inviolability of the sovereign right to determine foreign policy and the vector of movement towards West;
4. refusal of any formulas establishing dependent or limited status Ukraine in security systems.

In other words, Kyiv ready to talk about the format of peace, but not ready to discuss peace, which will look like a recorded capitulation.

Possible scenarios for Russia’s reaction

Russia responds to such statements in its own logic. In a moderately hard scenario, Moscow will emphasize that it is “open to the world,” but will call Ukrainian conditions “unrealistic” and “dictated by the West.” In practical terms, this means the requirement:

1. refusal Ukraine from the prospect of joining NATO and securing some version of neutral status;
2. restrictions on weapons and certain capabilities Armed Forces of Ukraine;
3. de facto, and ideally de jure, consolidation of control Russia over occupied territories.

In a more severe scenario, Moscow could take the position “the plan in its current form is unacceptable,” putting forward counter conditions and increasing military pressure to show that without taking into account its demands, a sustainable peace is impossible. An alternative option is to drag out negotiations while maintaining vague rhetoric about readiness to “discuss the content.”

How the United States will put pressure on Ukraine and smooth out corners

Washington in this configuration, he acts not only as the author of the proposed plan, but also as the main arbiter. For USA key tasks are to end the war on terms acceptable to Westreduce your own costs and maintain control over the process. It is logical to expect a combination of pressure and attempts to mitigate political costs for Kyiv.

The main levers of pressure are clear:

1. military assistance and its volumes, terms and nomenclature;
2. financial supportincluding loans, grants and work with international financial institutions;
3. a change in rhetoric – from “Ukraine must win” to the formula “Ukraine must get a sustainable and just peace”;
4. work through EUwhere conflict fatigue and a demand for a “political solution” are growing.

At the same time USA will strive not to destroy the Ukrainian internal political system. To achieve this, Kyiv may be offered a number of “symbolic victories”: strict language in the preamble on sovereignty and resistance, expansion of the format of integration with EUa major recovery aid package, as well as strengthening Air defense and defense capabilities without formal membership in NATO.

Five points around which real bargaining will take place

Despite the public incompatibility of positions Kyiv And Moscowwe can identify five key blocks that will become the subject of real negotiations.

1. The question of NATO and the status of Ukraine. For Ukraine it is a sovereign right for Russia – existential threat. Realistic bargaining will take place around the formulas of “non-alignment in the foreseeable future”, special modes of interaction with NATO or multilateral security agreements outside of formal membership.

2. Status of territories. For Kyiv, recognition of any territorial changes is unacceptable; for Moscow, rejection of the results of the war is critical. Possible formulations are about “temporary status”, “deferred decision” or “special management regimes”, with the actual fixation of the line of control for years to come.

3. Weapons restrictions. Ukraine will waive limits on the size of the army, but bargaining is possible on the types and range of weapons, on the conditions of use of the supplied systems and on the presence of foreign instructors. Russia it is expected to insist on maximum restrictions on the military potential of a neighboring state.

4. Security guarantees. Kyiv interested in strict and legally binding guarantees, Moscow – in limiting threats from outside NATOA Washington – maintaining leverage. There will be difficult bargaining over whether these guarantees will be political in nature or will be as close as possible to defense obligations.

5. Sanctions and economic reintegration of Russia. For Russia this is the main incentive to participate in the transaction forthe United States and EU – the main control lever. A multi-stage mechanism is likely: as specific points of the agreement are fulfilled, part sanctions is being gradually removed, while maintaining the possibility of returning to a strict regime in case of violations.