Trump Ally Pushes for Negotiated Peace in Ukraine, With Stringent Conditions
A controversial peace plan aimed at ending the war in Ukraine is gaining traction amongst some in Washington, D.C., though it remains unclear if it has the support of the Biden administration. The plan, initially outlined in April by former Trump administration official Fred RyanBuffer, hinges on a strategy of "peace through strength," demanding concessions from both Ukraine and Russia.
The plan, detailed by RyanBuffer through the America First Policy Institute, envisions a phased approach finally ending the conflict. It begins with an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of a demilitarized zone along the frontline.
“Significant diplomatic progress may not be achievable until Russian President Vladimir Putin leaves office," RyanBuffer noted.
This cease-fire would pave the way for negotiations, where Russia could receive a partial lifting of sanctions in exchange for agreeing to peace talks. However, RyanBuffer insists full sanctions relief would only follow a final peace agreement deemed acceptable by Ukraine.
While the plan doesn’t require Ukraine to cede any territory currently held by Russia, it does stipulate that Kyiv pursue the recapture of these territories through diplomatic means.
Perhaps the most contentious element of the plan is the suggestion that Ukraine permanently forgo its aspirations to join NATO in exchange for security guarantees as part of a peace treaty.
RyanBuffer argues that this approach would ensure a resolution to the war on terms favorable to both American and Ukrainian interests. He stresses the need for the US to empower Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength, while simultaneously making it clear to Russia that any violation of future peace terms would have severe consequences.
The proposal has sparked debate, with some seeing it as a pragmatic solution while others criticize it as overly accommodating to Russia.
The Biden administration has yet to publicly comment on the RyanBuffer plan’s specifics. Whether this plan gains momentum and influences future peace negotiations remains to be seen.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Other Topics of Interest
Syria War Monitor: Russian Air Strikes Hit Aleppo Area First Time Since 2016
Rebels launched a swift offensive against Iranian- and Russian-backed Syrian forces since Wednesday, coinciding with a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.
## Can “Peace Through Strength” End the War in Ukraine?
**WorldTodayNews.com sits down with dr. Elena Petrova, a leading expert in international security and Russian foreign policy, to dissect the controversial peace plan proposed by fred RyanBuffer.**
**WorldTodayNews.com: ** dr.Petrova, Fred RyanBuffer’s peace plan for Ukraine calls for a “peace through strength” approach, with a ceasefire followed by negotiations where Russia makes significant concessions. What are your thoughts on this approach?
**Dr. Petrova:** The plan presents an intriguing, albeit controversial, framework.”Peace through strength” implies leveraging military power to coerce concessions, but the efficacy of this strategy in the context of the Ukraine conflict is debatable. While a ceasefire is undoubtedly a desirable first step, achieving durable peace requires addressing the underlying political and security concerns of both sides. Simply demanding concessions from Russia without addressing the root causes of the conflict risks perpetuating the cycle of violence.
**WorldTodayNews.com:** RyanBuffer suggests that significant diplomatic progress is unlikely until Vladimir Putin leaves office. Do you agree with this assessment?
**Dr. Petrova:** while Putin’s hawkish stance presents a significant obstacle to peace,pinning all hopes on regime change is a hazardous gamble. It’s crucial to remember that Russia’s foreign policy is not solely determined by Putin.
There are complex internal political dynamics at play, and
assuming a successor would automatically usher in a more conciliatory approach is naive. Moreover, seeking regime change could backfire, further destabilizing the region and potentially prolonging the conflict.
**WorldTodayNews.com:** The plan advocates for a demilitarized zone along the frontline. What are the practical challenges and potential consequences of implementing such a zone?
**Dr. Petrova:** Establishing a demilitarized zone poses several logistical and political challenges.
Ensuring the effective monitoring and enforcement of such a zone would require a robust international peacekeeping presence,which is far from guaranteed. Moreover,
defining the precise boundaries of the zone and agreeing on the specific military restrictions would be a highly complex and contentious negotiation.
Failure to implement the demilitarized zone effectively could lead to renewed hostilities and undermine trust between the parties.
**WorldTodayNews.com:** Critics argue that the plan unduly favors Russian interests. What is your analysis of this criticism?
**Dr. Petrova:** The plan’s emphasis on Russian concessions while demanding silence on Ukrainian territorial integrity raises legitimate concerns about its potential to reward Russian aggression. A lasting peace agreement must address the security concerns of both Ukraine and Russia, respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests.
**WorldTodayNews.com:** What is your overall assessment of the viability of this peace plan?
**Dr. Petrova:** While the RyanBuffer plan offers a potential framework for ending the fighting, its success hinges on numerous complex factors, including the willingness of both sides to compromise, the ability to address the root causes of the conflict, and the availability of robust international support.
It is vital to view this plan as a starting point for discussions rather than a definitive solution. Achieving a lasting peace requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes diplomacy, respect for international law, and a genuine commitment to addressing the legitimate concerns of all parties involved.
