If the free world abandons Ukraine and pressures it into signing what is effectively a Russian wish list, it will prove we’ve learned nothing from history.
Is it an American plan or a Russian plan?
That question – as of this being written – is generating growing chaos in U.S. foreign policy. Earlier on Saturday evening, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds announced that, after speaking to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the so-called U.S. ‘peace plan’ being pushed on Ukraine was not in fact a U.S. peace plan, but rather a Russian plan:
“Republican Senator Mike Rounds:
“Rubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon and he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives. It is not our recommendation, it is not our peace plan.”
In other words, Russians have leaked their wishlist and the US officials had no idea what was going on and just went along. Absolutely remarkable.”
However, Rubio then contradicted Round’s remarks:
“The peace proposal was authored by the U.S.
It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations
It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”
Rounds then issued an interesting statement, casting the U.S. proposal (which is being presented by the Trump Administration as an ‘offer’ Ukraine should rapidly accept under immense pressure), as ‘input’ towards a final deal:
“I appreciate Secretary Rubio briefing us earlier today on their efforts to bring about peace by relying on input from both Russia and Ukraine to arrive at a final deal.”
This chaos and uncertainty underscore the degree to which the U.S. is an unreliable partner. And it makes it more urgent for Canada to both ramp up our own defence spending and work more closely with our allies.
In what is an important and ethical move, Prime Minister Mark Carney joined with the leaders of many of Canada’s top allies in (politely) rejecting the U.S. ‘peace plan.’
“This statement was adopted by Prime Minister Carney, President Macron, Prime Minister Martin, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Sánchez, Prime Minister Schoof, Prime Minister Starmer, Prime Minister Støre, President Stubb, Prime Minister Takaichi, President Costa, and President von der Leyen.
We welcome the continued US efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.
The initial draft of the 28-point plan includes important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace.
We believe therefore that the draft is a basis which will require additional work. We are ready to engage in order to ensure that a future peace is sustainable. We are clear on the principle that borders must not be changed by force. We are also concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack.
We reiterate that the implementation of elements relating to the European Union and relating to NATO would need the consent of EU and NATO members respectively.
We take this opportunity to underline the strength of our continued support to Ukraine. We will continue to coordinate closely with Ukraine and the US over the coming days.”
This is a nice way of saying that cutting the size of the Ukrainian Army, foreclosing NATO membership for Ukraine, and other aspects of the plan (which the U.S. is presenting as an ultimatum) are untenable.
Canada is right to reject this plan. We must show that we’ve learned from history, that we will not allow borders to be redrawn by force. Canada and our allies must now bring significant diplomatic and moral pressure to bear on the United States to push for a new peace plan that will help protect Ukraine, rather than sell Ukraine out to Russia as the current proposal does.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.