Trump’s top negotiator advised the Russians how to pitch Trump a plan to end Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine. That took place during a roughly five-minute conversation on Oct. 14 between Steve Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s top foreign-policy advisor. Bloomberg News, which obtained a recording of the call, published a transcript on Tuesday.
Witkoff advised flattering the U.S. president and predicted, “I think from that it’s going to be a really good call.” The real-estate billionaire continued, “I’m even thinking that maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza. We put a 20-point Trump plan together that was 20 points for peace and I’m thinking maybe we do the same thing with you.”
“Here’s what I think would be amazing,” Witkoff said. “Maybe [Putin] says to President Trump: you know, Steve and Yuri discussed a very similar 20-point plan to peace and that could be something that we think might move the needle a little bit, we’re open to those sorts of things.”
Regarding territorial concessions: “Now, me to you, I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere,” said Witkoff, referring to maximalist demands that Ukrainian law forbids its government to consider.
The Witkoff-Ushakov plan, which consisted of 28 points and “became public last week, appeared heavily skewed toward Russian demands and included calls for Ukraine to cede the entire Donbas region to Russia and dramatically reduce the size of its military,” the Associated Press reports. “It also included an agreement from Europe that Ukraine will never be allowed to join the NATO military alliance.”
The plan “drew from a Russian-authored paper submitted to the Trump administration in October,” Reuters reported Wednesday, extending their reporting on the document from last month.
Potential conflicts of interest: “Witkoff maintains active business [partnerships] with Leonard Blavatnik, a billionaire sanctioned by Ukraine for his alleged links to Kremlin-aligned oligarchs,” three reporters reminded readers in Tim Mak’s Counteroffensive newsletter.
On Tuesday, Trump reacted to Witkoff’s remarks. “He’s got to sell this to Ukraine. He’s got to sell Ukraine to Russia,” the president told reporters on Air Force One Tuesday evening. Earlier that day, Trump said his Ukraine plan still needs more work, writing on social media that he thinks “there are only a few remaining points of disagreement” between the U.S. and Ukrainian sides.
In hopeful indications, “Ukrainian officials continue to express support for the latest 19-point peace plan and demonstrate Ukraine’s willingness to engage in further talks,” the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War wrote in their latest assessment Tuesday.
What daylight remains between the White House and Kyiv? It’s not clear just yet, but it likely concerns invaded and occupied land Trump wants Ukraine to give to Russia to stop Putin’s war. And indeed after the steady trickle of updates Tuesday, ISW said Ukrainian President Zelensky “wants to negotiate territorial concessions with Trump directly” in the coming days.
At least one Republican lawmaker was disturbed by Witkoff’s tactics. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. and Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon wrote on social media Tuesday, “[I]t is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he? He should be fired.”
Bacon called the 28-point plan “a recipe for Russian domination of Ukraine for decades to come,” and a document that “would have been an avenue for Russia to renew its invasion at any time,” he said in a call with reporters Wednesday morning.
Pennsylvania GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick struck a similar tone. “Why is Ukraine giving up territory to Russia, and Russia is not giving up territory to Ukraine? Why is Ukraine limiting and capping the size of their military when Russia is not doing the same?” Fitzpatrick said joining that call with Bacon on Wednesday. “How about Russia holds an election within 100 days too? That is monitored by international monitors, right? Why don’t we do both? Why? Why is everything a one way street?”
“I can promise you, the day we get back on Monday, you are going to see a large tranche of members in the House and the Senate—Democrat and Republican—that are waiting online to start to take action here,” Fitzpatrick said. “Because that plan, that 28-point plan was utterly ridiculous should be nowhere in the conversation. Nowhere. That’s the Munich Agreement all over again.”
Next up: Witkoff is expected to meet with Putin during the first week of December to continue negotiations.
EU’s POV: “If Russia could conquer Ukraine militarily, it would have already done so by now,” said Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, speaking Wednesday. “Putin cannot achieve his goals on the battlefield, so he will try to negotiate his way there. To secure the best outcome for Ukraine and Europe, we have to stay the course, but pick up the pace. This means more sanctions to deprive Russia of the means to fight, and more military and financial support to Ukraine.”
At least one question still lingers, and both AP and Axios considered it on Wednesday: Why was U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll selected to present Ukrainian officials with Witkoff’s plan? Not only did the Army Department’s personnel-and-equipment leader pitch that plan to Zelenskyy in Kyiv, but he was also chosen to meet with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi on Monday and Tuesday. Axios reports Vice President JD Vance made the call since he and Driscoll were classmates at Yale.
“It’s an unlikely assignment for the Army’s top civilian leader, who got the job in February at age 38,” AP reports, noting, “His Senate confirmation hearing focused on how the Army could modernize its systems, improve recruiting and beef up the military industrial base, not international diplomacy.”
“Driscoll’s star is rising,” Axios writes, and cites his “willingness to engage media outside of the Pentagon’s preferred pool of conservative outlets” and “a marathon travel circuit that has brought him to dozens of military installations and countries.”
Concurrent question: Why wasn’t Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth chosen instead of Driscoll? Former Naval War College professor Tom Nichols has an idea, writing Tuesday for The Atlantic. Hegseth “is unqualified to do anything but push-ups,” Nichols argued. “This realization is probably why Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, and not the actual head of the Pentagon, is the person meeting with the Russians in Geneva trying to stop the biggest war in Europe since 1945. Trump seems to like Hegseth, but the administration also seems to be taking care not to let Hegseth near anything breakable or dangerous.”
Additional reading: “NATO has built a cloud for Ukraine’s classified battle data,” Defense One’s Lauren C. Williams reported Tuesday.
Welcome to this Thanksgiving Eve edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston with Meghann Myers. It’s more important than ever to stay informed, so thank you for reading. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1968, U.S. Air Force UH-1F transport helicopter pilot Capt. James Fleming rescued an Army Special Forces unit while under attack in Vietnam. He was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions.
Around the Defense Department
Update: Navy cancels Constellation-class frigate after just two ships. SecNav John Phelan made the announcement via tweet on Tuesday afternoon, and a senior defense official later told reporters that the decision is part of an effort to “grow the fleet faster” and “more rapidly construct new classes of ships and deliver capabilities our war fighters need in greater numbers and faster,” USNI News reported.
One year ago, a CRS report highlighted numerous concerns about the program, starting with the Navy’s decision to start construction before the design was finished. This approach—“concurrency” in acquisition argot—is perennially tempting and risky; it’s part of what got the F-35 program into trouble. Will Phelan and crew eschew it?
USAF plan to fly C-5, C-17s even longer elicits concern. A Nov. 19 solicitation memo says the Galaxy will fly until 2045 and the Globemaster until 2075, longer than previously planned, to ensure that the Air Force has enough airlift capacity while it waits for the Next-Generation Airlift aircraft. NGAL is to reach production no earlier than 2038 and initial operating capacity three years after that. Defense One’s Thomas Novelly talked to a few former mobility leaders who expressed concerns about that, here.
GAO: Pentagon reporting on Pacific deterrence is inconsistent. “DOD spends billions of dollars each year to counter China’s growing military strength. Congress established [the Pacific Deterrence Initiative] to track how much DOD plans to spend for deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region. We found that the military services weren’t consistent in what they included in the annual PDI budget report. For example, the Marine Corps included most of its forces in the western Pacific, while the Navy included almost none. Thus, we found that the reports don’t give Congress a complete picture of the efforts/costs in the region.” The Government Accountability Office has more.
And ICYMI, from May: “The typically uncontroversial, under-the-radar agency is fighting to retain power against attempts by Republicans in the Trump administration and on Capitol Hill to undercut its legal conclusions and independence—an onslaught that has been fast and furious,” Politico reported.
Additional reading:
Trump 2.0
While the Trump administration implores SCOTUS to authorize National Guard troops in Chicago, the New York Times on Tuesday (gift link) found the White House “made erroneous claims to the Supreme Court, mischaracterizing the responsiveness of local police and the actions of protesters” in its emergency request that could be decided as soon as this week.
In short, “A Times analysis of hours of police radio and hundreds of videos posted to social media refutes the federal government’s claims that the Chicago Police Department didn’t respond quickly to the scene, leaving federal agents to fend for themselves during what they called a riot.”
Why it matters: “That contention is central to the administration’s legal rationale for deploying the National Guard: that ‘violent protests’ are preventing agents from enforcing immigration law.” Worth the click, here.
Retribution forecast: The White House’s threats to call former astronaut Sen. Mark Kelly to active duty in order to prosecute him for a video he made last week “would face steep hurdles in a system designed to give troops strong rights to due process,” Reuters reports, citing seven military law experts.
For example, “Kelly could claim his speech was protected by the First Amendment since he wasn’t inciting military disobedience but making general statements of fact,” the wire service writes. “Members of Congress are protected from investigation and prosecution for official acts under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, according to Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck.” Much more, here.
Background reading: “Trump and Hegseth’s Hysterical Reaction to an Ad,” via Jonathan Chait, writing Tuesday for The Atlantic.
Related reading:
Admin note: We’re off the remainder of the week. Have a great Thanksgiving for our readers who celebrate, and we’ll see you again on Monday!
Read the full article here