The war in Ukraine has returned to the top of global headlines following US president Trump’s latest attempt to impose a peace plan on Ukraine president Zelensky. Trump’s new “28-point Ukraine peace plan”, which was drafted “with Russian input”, would impose huge concessions on Kyiv. This would include halving Ukraine’s armed forces, surrendering advanced weaponry, and ceding territory in eastern Ukraine to Russia.
The plan, described as a detailed proposal coordinated between Moscow and Washington, was conceived over the heads of the European powers and Ukraine government. Ukraine would be required to cut its armed forces by 50% and face strict limits on future military build-up. Kyiv would have to surrender long-range missiles, heavy artillery, and parts of its defence systems. Ukraine would be obliged to permanently hand over all remaining parts of the Donetsk Oblast still under its control to Russia, which would effectively freeze the front line in the war zone.
The plan corresponds to a key Russian demand that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and would restrict deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil. Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014, would be internationally recognised as Russian under the plan. And this, Trump’s plan would see Russia welcomed back into the G8.
European officials, in private, have called the plan a “capitulation”. In public they have to be much more circumspect given that the United States is the main funder and arms supplier to the Ukrainian army. French, German and British governments have said the plan contains “important elements” but “requires additional work” to ensure lasting peace. They note that neither the EU nor NATO were consulted about the deal plans. EU officials have added that halving Ukraine’s military would leave it vulnerable to future military attack and that conceding territory legitimises Russia’s war of aggression.
While Vladimir Putin has expressed cautious approval for the plan, he is expected to push for stricter constraints on Ukraine’s military and to reject any proposed Nato-like security guarantees for the country.
There are major economic benefits for the US should Trump’s plan see the light of day. Given growing signs of economic problems in the US, this is an important aspect of the deal for Trump. By forcing Ukraine to reduce its armed forces and limiting NATO involvement, the US could scale back billions in military aid and redirect resources to other parts of the world. Sanctions relief for Russia would stabilise global oil and gas markets, lowering volatility and prices for US consumers (and possibly for European countries, like Germany). American companies would gain rights to share profits and royalties from Ukraine’s critical minerals (lithium, titanium, rare earths). Reintegrating Russia into the G8 would open new markets for US firms. And the US would control mechanisms that deliver economic rewards to Russia, allowing the US to shape global capital flows.
Trump has said that, on the one hand, he wants Zelensky to accept the deal by Thanksgiving Day in the United States, which is next Thursday. On the other hand, Trump has said that the plan is not the final offer and could serve as the basis for negotiations, denying it was simply a Russian wish list. When asked what would happen if Zelensky refused to sign the proposal, Trump dismissively retorted, “He can continue to fight his little heart out.”
The reality is Trump’s deal is hugely in Moscow’s favour. This has led to some voices in Trump’s Republican party publicly criticising the proposals. All the red lines put forward by Zelensky and European leaders and the previous Biden administration in the United States are being crossed in such a plan. It would mean losing territory, military capacity and aspirations to join NATO. And rather than being regarded as a renegade country, Russia regains legitimacy and reintegration into global institutions.
This is too much for European powers to stomach. At a hastily called meeting in Geneva, on Sunday 23rd of November, involving senior figures from the US, Ukraine and Europe, the European leaders tried to put together arguments and measures to delay, dilute, fundamentally renegotiate or sabotage Trump’s plan.
According to the Financial Times, “hastily arranged Geneva talks followed a rear-guard effort by Kyiv’s European allies to thwart a US bid to force a plan on Ukraine”.
On social media, Trump lashed out at Ukrainian and European leaders for their failure to secure a truce. He accused the Ukrainian leadership of having “zero gratitude for our efforts” and highlighted what he claims is European hypocrisy, noting that they “continue to buy oil from Russia.”
For the EU and Britain, the plan signifies Trump’s wish to withdraw from the Ukraine conflict and leave European powers largely to pay for post-war economic and military costs. It signifies dramatically that the US will no longer be the superpower behind the backs of the European nations or NATO in all circumstances. It leaves the European powers prone to the Russian military machine which has developed over the course of the war in Ukraine.
Should Zelensky unequivocally reject Trump’s proposed peace plan, the consequences for Ukraine could be dire. Trump has threatened to cut off crucial US military and intelligence support. Facing such pressure, both Kyiv and European leaders might find themselves compelled, albeit unwillingly, to engage with the substance of Trump’s initiative and to agree to major concessions.
It is also possible that the Trump peace plan cannot be agreed and unravels. As a result the war continues. But for what purpose? Daniel Driscoll, the US army secretary who presented the plan to Zelensky in Kyiv said that “it is the honest US military assessment that Ukraine is in a very bad position”. Senior US army figures have said the same thing for months, arguing that Ukraine lacks critical numbers of soldiers and is seeing rising desertions.
The backdrop to Trump’s plan are the facts on the ground in Ukraine. For weeks, Russian drone barrages have made strikes on Kiev and against energy facilities and infrastructure causing widespread power cuts and rationing, as winter bites.
The conflict has also been in danger of spilling beyond Russia and Ukraine. European states, like Poland, have claimed Russian warplanes and drones have entered their airspace.
As the grinding war now approaches four years it is clear that Russia is winning in its ambitions and that both sides have had to pay enormous costs in human lives, infrastructure and economically.
Facts and figures are hard to verify given the massive propaganda from both sides in this conflict. The United Nations, as of October 2025, have verified 53,000 civilian casualties, 14,000 of these are deaths and 38,000 are injuries. Civilian casualties in 2025 were up by 27% from 2024 due to intensified missile and drone attacks in areas such as Kursk, Kharkiv and Donetsk.
Military casualties are extremely high. Estimates vary widely but it is likely that hundreds of thousands on both sides have died. Russia is reported to have lost up to 80,000 troops just during certain phases of the conflict alone. Ukraine’s military losses are not officially released but it is highly likely they have suffered in the tens of thousands, if not more.
The war has caused enormous economic destruction. Ukraine’s gross domestic product collapsed between 2022 and 2023. Infrastructure damage is in the hundreds of billions. The energy, agriculture and manufacturing sectors in Ukraine have been devastated.
The massive displacement of people in Ukraine due to the war has caused severe pressure on public finances, which are heavily dependent on Western funding.
Russia, in turn, has been hit by sanctions. Inflation has grown and foreign investment collapsed. To deal with this situation, Moscow has shifted trade towards China and India and embarked on a huge military build-up and new military alliances, including with North Korea.
War’s global toll
The global economic toll of war is estimated at $2.4 trillion (US), so far. The war has had a big effect on energy price spikes, disrupted trade, and soaring global military spending. The conflict has also contributed to inflation, global food insecurity, grain export disruptions, and a reshaping of energy markets.
On a humanitarian level, it has been a catastrophe. Over 14 million Ukrainians have been displaced: the largest European refugee crisis since World War II. This has put a huge strain on countries which have absorbed millions of refugees, in particular Poland, Hungary, and Romania. Germany has the most refugees from Ukraine, over 1.2 million.
The war has also represented a geopolitical turning point. It marks a major rupture in global relations and intensifies great power rivalries.
Under the presidency of Trump, a major shift in US policy quickly emerged. Trump has correctly judged that Ukraine cannot win the war and he wants to bring the war to an end so that US resources can also be redirected towards South East Asia and confronting the growing power of China. Trump hopes this can be helped by attempts to loosen Russian ties with China.
Since Trump came to office, he has had a very strained relationship with Zelensky, to say the least, compared to the fawning the former comedian received in one European capital after another, and at the White House under Biden. Trump has been consistent in arguing that Ukraine and the European powers have to accept that Russia will keep significant parts of territories it occupies.
Trump has pushed for negotiations. He spoke with Putin in Alaska last summer. This triggered panic amongst European powers. Many of them rushed to the summit to act as a buffer for Zelensky. They were terrified that the Ukrainian leader would face the same type of humiliation as he did when he visited the White House early this year and was lectured and hectored by Trump and his Vice President, Vance, in front of the world’s media.
Following the Alaska talks, European powers acted to obstruct any meaningful negotiations. Their aim has been a forlorn hope that as the war continues, Russia can be eventually exhausted and forced into retreat. Their long-term objective is to destabilise or collapse the Putin regime. However, although many European leaders are bellicose, the European Union is divided, to some extent, on the Ukraine war.
Many leaders in Europe, such as Starmer in Britain, are determined to fight to the last Ukrainian’s life, to defeat Putin. But deep splits exist inside the EU. Hungary and Slovakia have broken with the EU war policy. The Viktor Orban regime in Hungary and the Slovak government push for negotiations rather than escalation. This reflects historical ties with Russia, fears of being dominated by the Western European powers, and also the character, in particular, of the Orban regime, which is right-wing populist and nationalist and wishes for trade and economic reasons to keep ties with Russia.
Orban went so far as to offer Budapest as the venue for new Trump-Putin talks. However, Trump canceled the meeting, saying Putin would not make significant concessions. The reality, of course, is that Putin sees no need to make any huge concessions. Russian forces have been advancing and winning territory, slowly but steadily. This, of course, has come at a huge human cost for Russia.
Pokrovsk ready to fall
The town of Pokrovsk in the Donbass-Donetsk region is very close to falling to Russian forces. This will be a major strategic and morale blow to Ukraine and its Western backers. After the collapse of the Budapest initiative, Trump, who likes to flip-flop on issues, lashed out at Putin. He announced a new round of sanctions, which were tougher and more targeted than previous. No doubt, the sanctions are painful, but they are far from decisive blows against the Russian economy.
Russia has adapted since 2014, following the Maidan Square so-called revolution and Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the first sanctions imposed against it. Moscow has developed new trade routes with non-Western states. It uses so-called “ghost ships” to move oil and gas outside controlled sanctions.
Over the last couple of years, Russia has moved towards a ‘war economy’, restructuring manufacturing and production. This has led to high levels of employment and even labour shortages, which at least in the short term has given a boost to workers’ wages. There are limits, of course, to Russia’s war economy. It is unsustainable in the long run. The Russian economy faces severe pressure on multiple fronts. Oil majors like Rosneft and Lukoil are seeing revenues curtailed as sanctions cut into oil exports. The budget deficit is widening due to increased war spending coinciding with a decline in energy income. To raise funds, VAT is being increased (from 20% to 22%), which will negatively affect household spending and small businesses. Rising debt and high interest rates pose a significant risk of a banking crisis within the next year. Economists are predicting an “irreversible turn toward stagnation,” driven by weak consumer incomes and a reduction in investment.
The Russian economy is lopsided, dependent on hydrocarbons and militarisation. Yet, for now, Putin remains relatively secure. He has defeated internal challenges during the war, including the mutiny led by the Wagner military group over a year ago. Russia’s military position has improved and is now dominant in drone warfare. Drones are responsible for an incredible 70-80% of casualties in the Ukrainian war.
Russia has created a special military unit exclusively dealing with drones, called Rubikon, which has an estimated 5,000 personnel. It is dedicated to manufacturing drones, jamming devices against Ukrainian drone operations and other systems.
The Russian army has also slowly but surely learnt from early setbacks on the field of battle and adapted its army’s tactics. A massive military mobilisation process allows Russia to throw far more soldiers into the “meat grinder” than Ukraine can do with a much smaller population. Nevertheless, there will have been pressures growing on Putin over the last few months. There is a growing war weariness and anger from families of dead soldiers. Putin’s position could well be shaken if the economy seriously falters or the war drags on without faster and more decisive breakthroughs.
Yet, Ukraine’s position is far more perilous. Despite huge Western military and financial backing, Ukraine is on the defensive and losing ground. State corruption, which saps at the war effort and morale, remains rampant.
Corruption scandals
Zelensky has been forced to distance himself from government ministers and business partners implicated in defence sector graft. The latest scandal involves up to $100m stolen funds, some of which was meant to pay for upgraded defence of energy plants that are now facing punishing drone attacks. This is explosive given the sacrifices made by Ukrainian soldiers and the population. Public sentiment is shifting in Ukraine. Only about 24% think the war is worth fighting until victory. Zelensky has been forced to seek more protection and support from European powers since Trump has come to office.
But the EU is divided on war financing. Sharp debates take place within the EU on how to continue funding Ukraine’s war effort. The latest European Commission proposal is to use loans backed by frozen Russian state assets. Other ideas are a levy on EU member states. But this force faces strong opposition. Most European states face weak growth, high debt levels and high interest rates and are unwilling to take on new economic burdens. Despite their tough talk about fighting Putin to the end, EU leaders hesitate when economic and political costs become real.
There’s also the dangers of continuing the conflict and its spiralling out of control. After the Alaska talks, Trump escalated threats against Russia and said he was considering sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. This has long been a demand of the Zelensky government. But Trump pulled back after his military advisers warned this would be a major escalation since some Tomahawks can strike deep inside Russian territory. Russia warned that such a move would be seen as a direct NATO involvement and could risk a wider war.
Will there be peace? Will Trump’s plan come into fruition? Of course, the war will eventually end, formally or informally, at some point. But all the diplomatic acrobatics in Alaska and the attempts to have further talks in Budapest hide the reality. The battlefield will determine the timing and balance and outcome of any talks fundamentally. At present, Putin holds the initiative. He can continue to gain territory and further weaken the Zelensky regime.
Zelensky, in turn, fears serious negotiations. He will enter from a position of severe weakness. Current polls in Ukraine shows that he’s likely to lose an election. His current stance of refusing to negotiate while losing territory is a dangerous gamble. It has the risk of a regime crisis in Ukraine. Further large territorial or strategic losses alongside corruption scandals involving figures close to Zelensky could trigger wider domestic discontent and even protests. Big protests took place last summer when elements of the state tried to close down investigations into graft at the highest levels. The possibility of Zelensky being removed and replaced by a figure more open to the Trump line is possible.
Reluctantly, Zelensky might agree to negotiations, despite the difficulty of engaging with a plan that involves ceding territory currently under Ukrainian control. His hope would be that any deadlines set by Trump will be disregarded and that the proposed plan will eventually be modified to the point of being unrecognizable.
Zelensky’s main backers, the European powers, also have their own contradictions and problems. European governments are pouring enormous amounts of money into the Ukraine conflict and building up militarisation in their own countries while at the same time slashing social spending.
World a much more dangerous place
The Ukraine war has also made the world a much more dangerous place. Several states abandoned neutrality and joined NATO after the war erupted in 2022. Many people in those countries will have probably seen this as a necessary evil to give them protection against an aggressive Russia in the future. But NATO membership can become increasingly unpopular as living standards reduce while military budgets increase.
Neutrality has become a key issue in some countries, sparking sharp debates. It was a major contributing factor to the election of Catherine Connolly in Ireland as President. Part of her appeal was her long-standing defence of Irish neutrality.
It remains to be seen how the Trump peace plan will be handled in the coming days and weeks. The US president set a deadline next Thursday. However, Trump seems to have at least partially backed off on that and also said the document is open to discussion and negotiation. One of his key cabinet members, Marco Rubio, told senators that the document had come from Russia, not the United States, though Rubio rowed back on that comment later. Certainly the European powers and other allies will do all they can to push against the Trump document.
But whether the war comes to an end through formal negotiations, at this stage or not, we can see the outlines already. Barring any military catastrophes for the Russian army, it is clear that Putin will hold large chunks of eastern Ukraine and Crimea. On this basis, Ukraine will be a divided country, heavily militarised on both sides. It will join other so-called “frozen conflicts” in the former USSR; except these are not frozen, as ongoing fighting continues at different levels, with endemic instability and periodic flare-ups.
In the case of Ukraine, the risk of renewed war, with potential spill-over across eastern Europe and further afield, will be inherent in a post-war situation.
Ukraine will have lost large parts of its territory, and is left with a devastated economy. Russian workers also, of course, have to bear the cost of the war economy in Russia, and the tightening of Putin’s authoritarian regime.
This disaster, which has befallen the people of Ukraine and Russia, reflects the deep crisis of global capitalism and shifting geopolitical relations. After 1991, the US acted as the sole superpower, imposing its agenda from the Middle East to Afghanistan and beyond. However, US imperialism is in relative decline. The US economy, still the strongest in the world, is also in relative decline, with China rapidly closing the gap and going ahead in some sectors. The US remains militarily dominant on the planet, but China has massively expanded its capabilities militarily.
The world is increasingly unstable. Since the Cold War, more states have acquired nuclear weapons, and Trump recently announced plans to restart US nuclear testing. China has in the last five years doubled its nuclear weapons from 300 to 600 and could reach 1,000 by 2030. Russia has over 5,450 and the US holds nearly 5,200. There is also a growing risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, potentially involving Iran and Gulf monarchies, further escalating a volatile global situation, especially with nuclear-armed adversaries like India and Pakistan.
The war and the Left
The Ukraine war has caused widespread disarray among the international Left. Some of the left tacitly or openly support Putin, arguing that Russia is the lesser evil against US and NATO-backed Ukraine. This approach ignores the character of the Putin regime. Putin’s regime is reactionary and anti-working class. There is nothing progressive about it. Domestically it has a long history of anti-trade union and anti-working class policies, and repression against ethnic and national minorities and against women and the LGBTQ community.
Russia is a lesser imperialist power, displaying imperial ambitions even when militarily and economically weak under Boris Yeltsin. Under Yeltsin and then forcefully under Putin, Russia intervened to dominate former Soviet republics (“near abroad”), leading to brutal wars in Chechnya. In the early 1990s, a weak Russian economy led to Moscow raising the possibility of NATO membership, which Western powers blocked due to the contradictions and instability this would bring. Rising oil and gas prices later economically strengthened Russia, allowing Putin to modernise the army.
Moscow viewed NATO expansion, particularly Ukraine’s potential membership, as a direct threat and a “red line.” Some on the Left dismiss NATO’s role, noting the 2022 war began years after most of NATO’s eastern European expansion. However, the causes of major conflicts are not always linear; for example, 20 years passed between the Treaty of Versailles and Nazi Germany’s wars of aggression. Western strategists, including Cold War architect George Kennan and Henry Kissinger, warned from the 1990s that NATO’s eastward expansion would provoke Russia and destabilise Europe. Kennan called the 1997 expansion a “tragic mistake.”
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev claimed Soviet officials received disputed verbal assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Despite Moscow’s warnings, NATO added Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999, and Baltic states and others in 2004. Russia consistently saw this expansion as a threat, especially the 2008 offer of potential membership to Ukraine and Georgia. Many Western analysts argue that ignoring these warnings contributed to the 2022 invasion, highlighting how imperialist expansion and miscalculation can escalate conflict. Trump has now made ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine a key point in his 28-point peace deal.
The long-term US imperialist aim is to exploit the region’s rich natural resources and the working classes. It has partly fermented ‘colour revolutions’ in parts of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union over the last decades. Often these coloured revolutions had an element of genuine mass movements against corrupt governments and poverty. But without a working class voice, politically, the way was opened to involvement and meddling by imperialist powers from Europe and the United States.
However, an ongoing NATO expansion right up to the door of Russia has been complicated for the West by the relative weakening of US imperialism, in particular due to China’s rise and after debacles in the Middle East and Afghanistan. US imperialism also now faces pushback as countries like Russia, China and North Korea form new alliances. So the conflict between Russia and Western imperialist powers predates Putin’s invasion in 2022.
The so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2003 exposed divisions within Ukrainian society. On one side is a Ukrainian-speaking population, about 78%, many of whom are broadly pro-Western. At the same time, there’s a sizable Russian-speaking population, many of whom are pro-Russian, although this is not fixed and other factors, such as class, have been key in determining mass consciousness and identity. Factions of the ruling elites in Ukraine exploit these divisions to gain territory and resources for themselves. Prior to the war, the Ukraine governments sought to limit the rights of the ethnic Russians and other minorities in Ukrainian, like the Hungarian speakers.
Putin’s reactionary justification for the 2022 invasion denies Ukraine’s legitimacy as an independent state. In his speech, as Russian troops entered Ukraine, Putin attacked Lenin’s policy of national self-determination, calling it a mistake that allowed Ukraine to become a Soviet republic after the 1917 revolution. Marxists, in contrast, defend Lenin’s policy of self-determination, up to and including secession, if the oppressed nationalities so desire, which was vital for the Bolsheviks to win over oppressed masses in 1917 and during the subsequent civil war.
The CWI rejects the simplistic one-sided views of some on the Left that frame Ukraine’s armed resistance to Russia as solely a question of a right to self-determination and downplay or dismiss the inter-imperialist aspect of the conflict. Those sections of the Left have ended up as champions of the reactionary Zelensky regime’s war efforts, demanding arms go into its hands, furthering its right wing nationalist and pro capitalist aims.
Russia’s imperialist ambitions
The CWI recognizes the conflict’s multiple dimensions. Russia is a lesser imperialist power but acts as a regional imperialist bully with broader ambitions, as seen by its actions in Syria and elsewhere. Ukraine is backed by Western imperialist powers (US, UK, France, Germany).
The CWI opposed the 2022 Russian invasion, arguing NATO expansion cannot justify Putin’s chauvinistic, reactionary war, which damages working-class interests.
The Ukrainian people had the right to resist Russia’s 2022 invasion. Their response forced a Russian pull-back from Kyiv to the east. Putin misjudged the Zelensky regime’s weakness and NATO’s willingness to support a prolonged war.
In eastern Donbass, bombarded by Ukrainian forces since 2014, the wishes of the population is unclear, but it is certain that they reject the rule of Ukraine nationalist chauvinist regimes, yet are wary, to put it mildly, of Putin’s rule.
Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, following a pro Western coup in Kyiv. Crimea was historically transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the 1950s, where many identify with Russia, though minorities like Tatars feel oppressed.
Socialists advocate for a democratic, unhindered self-determination for Crimea and the Donbass region, overseen by independent working-class organisations.
The most fundamental problem facing the impoverished masses in both Ukraine and Russia is the lack of independent workers’ organisations and strong socialist movements, creating a vacuum filled by reactionaries, ultra-nationalists, and chauvinists, fuelling the war.
The CWI has supported the demand for the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces, an end to Western arms for the Zelensky regime. We reject ruling-class ‘peace plans’ like Trump’s, made over the heads of the working people of Ukraine and Russia.
Socialists need to oppose any peace deal imposed from above by different imperialist powers and the Ukrainian capitalist government. At best, for a time, it will freeze fighting. The real solution lies in building movements from below that can permanently end the war and conflicts and divisions on the basis of allowing the working people to decide their future, to defend and restore democratic rights, and work to create workers’ governments that end oligarch rule and break with capitalism, beginning to create the basis for genuine co-operation in building a new, genuine socialist society.
To reach these goals, requires today building independent, democratic, combative trade unions and socialist organizations to challenge oligarchies and imperialism, leading to workers’ governments that can peacefully discuss their common future and fight for socialist transformation.