NYT found out what is hidden behind the four packages of Trump’s “Peace Plan” for Ukraine

Washington and Kyiv are once again at a point of tension — Trump is putting forward a new set of conditions, trying to piece together four blocks of a future agreement. The topic of Ukraine’s sovereignty, arms limitations, the economy, and European security suddenly find themselves in one basket, and no one yet understands what to take out first.

Negotiations are now moving in fits and starts. They speed up, then stop — Trump previously insisted on a deadline by Thanksgiving, November 27. But, as The New York Times writes, the deadline has already “slipped”: a week here, a week there, and some interlocutors in Washington are talking about the end of February, by the anniversary of the invasion. The Ukrainian team is still going to meet with his representatives — trying to seize the moment while the U.S. has interest. In Moscow, however, things are dragging down: Putin is not budging an inch, and the five-hour negotiations with the Americans ended in nothing. Not even a hint of a shift.

The situation is unpleasant for Trump. Either pressure Kyiv and risk the very idea of Ukrainian sovereignty, or admit that the conflict does not fit into the promised “24 hours.” A third way is not visible now. Kushner, sources claim, is actively involved: the meeting on December 2 — the sixth of the year and the longest — became a test of how much Moscow perceives the format of the “new deal” at all.

Europe is watching warily. The President of Ukraine has already made it clear: his team will report in Brussels on what exactly is being discussed and how it might affect Europe’s defense line. The main fear here is obvious — that any agreement does not open a window for a new strike by Russia. Doubts are multiplying. Jennifer Kavanagh from Defense Priorities bluntly says: Putin’s belief in his own military progress makes compromise almost unrealistic.

And yet the process is ongoing. The Americans have broken down the “Trump plan” into four separate packages — discussing in parts is easier than trying to unravel everything at once. But experts note the oddity: the format of the negotiations is moving away from any historical model. Nothing similar happened in either 20th-century Europe or Middle Eastern examples. The sides have too different cards in their hands.

The end is not yet in sight. What might suit Kyiv and Washington does not suit Moscow. And what Moscow wants will not pass anywhere — neither in Kyiv, nor in Europe, nor in the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, the pressure is growing, and the question now sounds different: not what the agreement will be, but whether it can even happen under the current geopolitics.

In any case, the subject of conversation will concern not only Ukraine but also the security structure of the entire region. And here it is important to remember: any decision made in the coming months will resonate far beyond Europe. This is increasingly being discussed in expert discussions, and we will continue to monitor the dynamics. In the materials of “NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency,” we analyze what each of the proposals means for Israel and the entire region.