Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomes US special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner during a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow on January 22, 2026. The two envoys are expected to travel to Moscow again soon. Neither of them has been to Ukraine. (Photo by Alexander KAZAKOV/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
POOL/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump may soon return to negotiations to reach a peace plan for Ukraine if the deal to end the war with Iran holds. Indeed, Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to travel to Moscow again soon. But so far, despite dozens of meetings and lengthy negotiations, Trump has not managed to end the war in Ukraine. The obstacle is not whether peace is desired. Most Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans and Americans all want the war to end. And yet it continues.
Indeed, Russia alone has suffered over 1.2 million casualties in the war, including more than 500,000 deaths. Ukraine has also suffered heavy losses and deaths, although not as much as Russia. In fact, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was protracted and lasted longer than WWI. The key question is why Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine failed.
A growing number of analysts, diplomats and foreign policy experts have contributed their expertise and analysis to this issue. They include retired Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO General Philip Breedlove (USAF), former US European Army Commander General Ben Hodges, leading US Senators Roger Wicker, Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders, leading American historians such as Anne Applebaum, Harvard’s Serhiy Plokhij and Yale Republican journalist David Timoth. Council Member Diane Francis. These experts argue that Trump’s approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has so far failed. Instead of surrendering, it sought to reward Russian aggression, undermine international law, and instead of bringing the warring parties closer together, it set the stage for future European instability.
Indeed, here are twelve of the most frequently cited concerns highlighted by these experts so far.
1. Heavy dependence on territorial concessions
One of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s reported peace proposals is the emphasis on freezing the conflict along existing battle lines and requiring Ukraine to accept the loss of territory currently held by Russia or even expand Russia’s hold to include more territory under Ukrainian control.
critics argue that forcing a democratic nation to surrender sovereign territory after an invasion effectively rewards military aggression. For Ukraine, which has witnessed war crimes and even genocide committed by Russians against the population in occupied Ukrainian territories, the principle of territorial integrity is not just a point of negotiation. it is a basic principle of national sovereignty.
2. Uneven pressure on Ukraine
Another major criticism is that Washington’s leverage has often been directed more toward Kiev than Moscow. Analysts cite instances of delays in arms deliveries, restrictions on information sharing and diplomatic pressure aimed at pushing Ukraine toward negotiations. These argue that these measures create the impression that the victim of aggression is more pressured than the aggressor.
3. Dismissal of Ukrainian Dominion
Several proposed settlement frameworks reportedly include Ukrainian recognition of Russian control over Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine. For Kyiv, this crosses a fundamental red line. Ukrainian officials have consistently maintained that no government has the constitutional authority to hand over national territory outright. Critics argue that accepting territorial changes achieved through military force would undermine one of the foundational principles of the post-World War II international order: that borders should not be changed through conquest.
4. Underestimating Russia’s Strategic Goals
Many experts believe that the conflict is not just a dispute over territory, but a broader struggle for Ukraine’s existence as an independent state. Numerous policy analyzes suggest that Russia’s goals extend beyond specific regions and include limiting Ukrainian sovereignty and Western integration.
5. Weak security guarantees
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (left) (1869 – 1940) and Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) at a dinner during Chamberlain’s 1938 appeasement visit to Munich. (Photo by Heinrich Hoffmann/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Even if a ceasefire has been reached, questions remain about enforcement. Reports of meetings between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky have highlighted concerns about the absence of strong security guarantees. No reliable interception many observers fear that Russia could simply regroup and launch another attack in the future. History offers reasons for caution. Previous agreements have failed to prevent renewed hostilities, leading critics to argue that enforcement is as important as diplomacy.
6. Controversial amnesty provisions
Some framework plans reportedly include broad amnesty provisions covering participants on all sides. Human rights advocates warn that such measures could impede accountability for alleged war crimes and human rights abuses committed during the conflict.
The issue is particularly sensitive given the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Putin for child abductions and forced deportations of Ukrainians from Russia, attacks on civilians and other violations of international humanitarian law. Critics argue that sustainable peace requires justice as well as political compromise.
7. Growing friction with Ukraine
WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 28: US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office at the White House on February 28, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Relations between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have often appeared strained. Critics argue that public criticism of Ukraine and repeated demands to accept questionable peace terms have eroded trust between Washington and Kiev. Diplomacy is highly dependent on trust between negotiating partners and this Self-confidence appears more and more fragile.
8. Alienation of European Allies
Although European governments would bear many of the consequences of any settlement, critics argue that European leaders are often treated as secondary participants in discussions on the future of European security. Several European governments have openly expressed reservations about proposals they believe could encourage future aggression. A viable settlement probably requires broad transatlantic consensus rather than unilateral decision-making.
9. Over-reliance on personal diplomacy
Trump has often touted his personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin as an advantage in negotiations. Critics argue that personal relationship alone cannot overcome deeply entrenched strategic interests. They say diplomacy ultimately comes down to power balances, incentives, deterrence and national interests, not just interpersonal chemistry or just personal trust between leaders.
10. Limited focus on long-term NATO security
Many analysts argue that the significance of the war extends far beyond Ukraine. The outcome will affect how other authoritarian powers assess the willingness of democratic nations to uphold international rules and treaty commitments. From this perspective, the war is not just a regional dispute, but a test of the broader security architecture created after the Cold War.
11. Preference for a quick deal
Another recurring criticism is that the emphasis seems to be on ending the conflict quickly rather than permanently resolving it. Speed, they argue, takes precedence over long-term stability. Critics argue that peace deals based primarily on political timelines often fail because they leave underlying disputes unresolved. A ceasefire may stop the shooting temporarily, but it does not necessarily create lasting peace.
12. Limited pressure on Moscow
Finally, many observers argue that Russia has repeatedly rejected or delayed ceasefire initiatives without facing significant consequences. Moscow, it seems, has little incentive to compromise if the pressure on it remains limited. Negotiations generally succeed when both parties believe that the costs of refusing a deal outweigh the benefits. Critics argue that this condition has not yet been met.
The bottom line
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Trump’s approach, these concerns deserve careful consideration. Perhaps the most important step Trump could take is to send his peace envoys Whitkoff and Kushner to Kiev before they see Putin again. In Kiev they could see the charred remains of the recently bombed Pecherska Lavra, Ukraine’s equivalent of France’s Notre Dame Cathedral. They could go deep underground to see subway stations where Ukrainians flee every night as Russian bombs raze their city. This is particularly important because critics point out that despite multiple visits to Moscow, no envoy has ever visited Ukraine.
The reality is that peace in Ukraine must be pursued regardless of whether the Iran deal is in place. Moreover, the challenge facing Trump is not simply ending this war. It ensures that conditions for the next major war are not incorporated into the peace agreement for it.
