A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
Top U.S. and Ukrainian officials, under pressure from the White House to meet a Thanksgiving Day deadline for a peace deal with Russia, said Sunday that they had made significant progress in a round of talks in Switzerland that Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the most productive in “a very long time.”
Ukraine’s top negotiator in Geneva and Mr. Rubio were publicly upbeat Sunday despite skepticism from Ukrainian allies in Europe and from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Washington about the 28-point, notably Russia-friendly, peace plan that was leaked to the press last week.
“We’ve had probably the most productive and meaningful meeting,” said Mr. Rubio, who was joined at the talks by Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll and President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. “I feel very optimistic that we can get something done.”
Andrii Yermak, the head of the Ukraine delegation, said, “We have made very good progress and are moving forward to a just and lasting peace.”
Mr. Yermak’s boss, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said negotiators had assured him that Ukraine’s concerns about the original plan had been addressed.
“There have already been brief reports from the team about the results of the first meetings and conversations,” he said. “There is now an understanding that the American proposals may take into account a number of elements based on the Ukrainian vision and are critically important for Ukraine’s national interests.”
SEE ALSO: Trump says 28-point peace plan to end Russia-Ukraine war isn’t ‘final offer’
The Ukrainians sat down with U.S. negotiators after meeting with representatives from Britain, France and Germany, all of whom have urged the Trump administration to stand behind Kyiv.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he had spoken with Mr. Trump about his and other European leaders’ problems with the deal as presented last week.
“I told him that we are fully in line with Ukraine — that the sovereignty of this country must not be jeopardized,” Mr. Merz told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
“Ukraine must be able to defend itself,” said Alice Rufo, a French Defense Ministry delegate who criticized the plan’s proposal to dramatically cut Ukraine’s armed forces.
Mr. Rubio downplayed Mr. Trump’s Thursday deadline. He said the U.S. wants the fighting to cease as soon as possible and that negotiations will continue.
“This is a very delicate moment,” Mr. Rubio said, as reported by The Associated Press. “Some of it is semantics, or language. Others require higher-level decisions and consultations. Others, I think, just need more time to work through.”
The initial proposal was widely panned, including by Republicans in Washington, as too favorable to Moscow. Mr. Rubio spent part of the weekend pushing back on the wave of criticism.
During a bipartisan trip to the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday, U.S. senators said in a press conference that Mr. Rubio had spoken with them that day. He told them that the document was “a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives.”
“It is not our recommendation,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, South Dakota Republican. “It is not our peace plan.”
Also criticizing the initial negotiating points was Sen. Todd Young, Indiana Republican and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“I am glad to hear from President Trump that the so-called Peace Plan is not final,” Mr. Young said in a post on X. “It’s time to tighten the thumbscrews on Putin, not throw in the towel against him.”
Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, dismissed the White House plan in an appearance broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” as “a series of Russian talking points.”
Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia in the years after Vladimir Putin’s return to the Russian presidency, called the initial draft a “Russian capitulation plan.”
“Ukrainian and Western leaders had no say in the drafting of the plan, which requires extreme concessions from Kyiv and demands nothing from Moscow,” Mr. McFaul, a professor of political science and the director of the Freeman Spogli Institute, said in an online post. He suggested that Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian envoy, leaked the plan in an effort to “tie Trump’s hands.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said in a post on X that the eventual approval of any peace plan should include congressional input.
“Congress should also have the ability to review a plan that includes any future security guarantees — just like we have the ability to review any Iran nuclear agreement,” Mr. Graham said. “A lasting peace in Ukraine must ensure Russia cannot launch another invasion in the future. Congressional review will allow us to achieve that goal.”
Mr. Trump said before the meeting Sunday, in a large post on his platform Truth Social, that Ukraine lacked gratitude for the level of support from the U.S. and bemoaned European purchases of Russian oil.
“UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS,” Mr. Trump wrote. “AND EUROPE CONTINUES TO BUY OIL FROM RUSSIA.”
Mr. Trump’s post notably lacked any mention of Russian responsibilities or actions and suggested only that “Putin would never have attacked” in an alternate history.
In a response to Mr. Trump, Mr. Zelenskyy said he was “grateful” for U.S.-led efforts on security.
“Ukraine is grateful to the United States, to every American heart, and personally to President Trump for the assistance that … has been saving Ukrainian lives,” Mr. Zelenskyy posted on X. He stressed that “the crux of the entire diplomatic situation is that it was Russia, and only Russia, that started this war.”
He said Russia is the only party refusing to end what he called “the full-scale invasion” of his country.
• John T. Seward can be reached at jseward@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.