Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Good morning, Roca Nation. Here are today’s four need-to-know stories:
Sam Altman declared a "code red" at OpenAI in an effort to improve ChatGPT following increased competition (free)
India's telecoms ministry ordered smartphone makers to pre-install a cybersecurity app on all new devices (free)
The founder and CEO of Dell Technologies announced he would donate $6.25B to fund investment accounts for 25M American children
Europe has emerged as a pivotal player in Ukraine-Russia talks, prompting warnings and threats from President Putin
By Max Frost
As you read this, American envoys may be sitting in a room with Russian or Ukrainian counterparts, discussing a way to end the war raging in Ukraine. These efforts have been ongoing for nearly a year; now, they may be bearing fruit.
The response to negotiations has been predictably polarized. One side says that Trump, aided by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is bringing peace to the devastated nation of Ukraine while mending relations with Russia and securing America’s interests; to the other, Trump is selling out Ukraine, forcing its surrender, and paving the way for future wars.
What’s the truth? That’s the subject of today’s deep-dive.
The current bout of talks really began with the 28-point peace proposal, unveiled late last month. The proposal – drafted by the US with Russian input – contained many Russian demands, sparking alarm among pro-Ukraine leaders, politicians, and commentators.
That group was quick to point out a handful of allegedly pro-Russia points, namely that Ukraine:
Would have to relinquish territory it currently controls;
Would have the size of its military capped;
And would be blocked from joining NATO.
While there were more points (25 of them), it was these three that drew the most attention. Yet the reality was more nuanced than many made it seem.
This full report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
First, the territory.
The plan would recognize “de facto” Russian control over three Ukrainian provinces: Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. Yet Russia already controls all of those, save one region of Donetsk that contains two major towns. In effect, Ukraine would be giving up that chunk of territory and those two towns. Two other contested provinces (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia) would be frozen along the current front line, cementing Russian control over the territory it already possesses there.
Supporters of the plan say this is a compromise that respects the facts of the battlefield; critics say it rewards Russian aggression with new territory.
Second, the military size.
The 28-point deal would permanently cap the size of Ukraine’s military at 600,000, below its current 800,000 size but significantly above the 85,000 that Russia has long demanded. Ukraine’s military had around 250,000 troops before the war.
Supporters of the plan say this is a major compromise by Russia and would ensure Ukraine’s ability to arm and protect itself; critics say it handicaps Ukraine’s long-term ability to defend itself.
Third: NATO.
The deal would require Ukraine to “enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO.” NATO would also agree not to station troops in Ukraine.
Supporters of the plan say this addresses Russia’s security concerns and recognizes a reality: Namely, that NATO will never have the unanimous support among members that it requires to add Ukraine. Critics say that it impinges on Ukraine’s sovereignty by allowing the US and Russia to determine its future and prevents Ukraine’s allies from contributing to its defense.
Ukraine would also have to make some smaller concessions, including adopting EU rules on religious and linguistic minorities, while eliminating “discriminatory measures” against Russian media and education. Russia has long alleged that Russian Orthodox Christians and Russian speakers have been persecuted by “Nazis” in Ukraine. The plan requires Russia to follow the same rules toward Ukrainians.
And Ukraine would have to hold elections within 100 days. Supporters say this is fair, as Ukraine’s elections have been delayed because of the war, while critics say it’s a way to knock out Zelensky and achieve Putin’s longstanding goal of regime change in Kyiv.
The plan also requires some concessions from Russia.
It envisions using $100B in frozen Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine, allows Ukraine to join the EU, and allows for security guarantees for Ukraine, without specifying what exactly that means. It would also require Russia to “enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.” While it would “[reintegrate Russia] into the global economy,” sanctions would be lifted “in stages and on a case-by-case basis,” rather than all at once, as Russia has demanded.
The above points – contained in the initial 28-point peace plan – sparked a furor among Ukraine’s supporters, with President Zelensky saying that “Ukraine may now face a very difficult choice, either losing its dignity or the risk of losing a key partner.”
Days later, US representatives met with Ukrainian and European officials, producing a new 19-point proposal. The full text of that plan wasn’t released; however, EU officials said that it rejected the changing of any borders “by force” or the “carving up” of European countries. Other officials said that it lifts the 600,000 troop cap and softens the restrictions on NATO troops in Ukraine. This weekend, talks between the US and Ukraine reportedly expanded it to a 20-point plan, with Zelensky calling it "one of the most challenging and yet optimistic moments at the same time."
American language around these revised proposals has been vague, while Russia has rejected them.
On Tuesday, the American dignitaries went to Moscow to discuss next steps with their Russian counterparts. There, Putin accused the Europeans of sabotaging the talks: “They put forward demands they know are entirely unacceptable for Russia, and then aim to pin the collapse of the peace process on us,” he said. As of Tuesday night, it’s unclear if the meeting produced any notable changes to the peace framework.
Any peace framework inherently relies on Russian promises to respect Ukraine’s borders. This is also what makes Ukraine’s supporters wary of any deal.
Among its requirements, the 28-point plan notes:
“Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed”;
“Russia, Ukraine, and Europe” will sign a “comprehensive non-aggression agreement”;
And “Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.”
Ukraine’s backers worry that wide-ranging interpretations of these points could be used by Russia to justify a future war, where Ukraine would be at a disadvantage because of other rules. To them, the pledges are little more than words on paper which Putin has repeatedly shown a willingness to disregard.
Supporters, meanwhile, generally say that a ceasefire has to start somewhere, even if there is no trust.
Editor’s Note
None of this is to say whether the deal is good or bad. It’s simply to provide the facts so you can make up your own mind. So we’re curious: Do you think the US is throwing Ukraine under the bus? Do the 28 points contain a fair deal? Or does it not matter? Does Russia’s power mean that a bad deal is inevitable? We’re curious. Let us know by replying here.
Speaking of replies, tons of you wrote in yesterday about our story on X and foreign influence. Sharing a few of those emails below.
Jeff wrote:
You're right about foreign bots on X but I think its wrong to call them out like it's the only platform with the issue. I have zero doubt that Instagram, Reddit, TikTok and others have the same issue. At least X is trying to do something about it. Reddit gives up actual moderation power to people no one knows anything about. That seems way more dangerous to me.
Alice said:
While I agree that X is a political cesspool, have you been on threads? I finally succumbed to the pressure and joined and left a week later. People on it are so mean for absolutely no reason Some grandma inadvertently posts a picture of a hand made dress she intends to wear to her granddaughters wedding. Thousands of people immediately pile on telling her how hideous and inappropriate it is and how fat and unattractive she looks in it.
Going on threads was making me legitimately depressed at the state of the world. I would love to find out that most of the accounts are bots or engagement farmers or foreign actors trying to stir up division. As it is, it makes me feel so sad for a world where people talk to each other like that.
And Kat from PA wrote:
Thank you for this well written article on X. I literally want to share it far and wide and have it tattooed on my forehead to remind people that so much of this isn’t real and to talk people in real life. And for the love of all things holy let the elderly people stop believing the AI memes of children helping bionic soldiers on facebook.
And check out our other recent stories below if you haven’t read them yet:
Thanks for reading. See you tomorrow.
—Max and Max
