Provided that Zelensky and Ukrainskaya Pravda right before him are telling the truth, then it looks like the most meaningful elements of a Russian-Ukrainian peace deal and subsequent Russian-US “New Détente” were already agreed to in Anchorage, but contingent on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbass.
Andrew Korybko
Zelensky confirmed to Reuters
last week that reports about the US offering Ukraine security
guarantees in exchange for it ceding Donbass to Russia are true but
insisted that he’s not interested in such a deal. This follows Ukrainskaya Pravda
earlier reporting the same, though they added that the US also promised
Ukraine “a golden flood of money for reconstruction” that would turn it
into a “paradise”. According to them, Putin and Trump agreed on this in
Anchorage, but the Kremlin hasn’t confirmed it.
Nevertheless,
Russian officials’ regular reference to the “Spirit of Anchorage” does
indeed hint that some deal was agreed to, and Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov recently accused
the US of “suggesting that we make more concessions, and vast economic
opportunities will open up to us after that.” This in turn can be
interpreted as indirectly confirming that Russia already made some
“concessions”, to use Lavrov’s parlance, though they were likely
compromises in exchange for something from the US and Ukraine.
In
any case, Zelensky’s confirmation to Reuters that the US is offering
Ukraine security guarantees in exchange for ceding Donbass to Russia
lends credence to the 28-point Russian-Ukrainian peace deal framework
that circulated in the media late last year, some points of which align
with precisely this idea. The same goes for the US providing
reconstruction assistance to Ukraine. Given all that’s unfolded since
then, especially after the Third Gulf War began, the following briefings will refresh readers’ memories:
* 8 March 2025: “Ukraine Already Kinda Has Article 5 Guarantees From Some NATO Countries”
* 21 November 2025: “Analyzing All 28 Points Of The Leaked Russian-Ukrainian Peace Deal Framework”
* 14 January 2026: “Why’d The US Signal Support For NATO Troops In Ukraine?”
* 5 February 2026: “What Are The Odds Of Russia Agreeing To A Three-Tiered Ceasefire Enforcement Plan In Ukraine?”
* 16 March 2026: “What Did Peskov Mean When He Said That ‘Reality Changed’ Since The Istanbul Accords?”
In
summary, the bilateral security agreements that Ukraine reached with a
raft of NATO states all throughout 2024 for resuming their present level
of military-logistical support in the event of another conflict already
suffice for Article 5-like guarantees, which don’t obligate the
dispatch of troops. In recent months, the US has been ramping up
pressure on Russia despite rhetoric about wanting a deal, and this might
be due to the potentially game-changing consequences of last August’s
regional US megaproject.
The “Trump Route for International
Peace & Prosperity” (TRIPP) will expand Western – including NATO –
influence through the South Caucasus, the Caspian, and Central Asia via
this trans-Armenian corridor linking NATO member Turkiye and its
Azerbaijani ally. Readers can learn more about TRIPP here,
which tightens the US’ encirclement of Russia in an unprecedented way.
More than likely, the US expects Russia to “make more concessions” as a
result to quote Lavrov, though it’s unclear whether it ultimately will.
Provided
that Zelensky and Ukrainskaya Pravda right before him are telling the
truth, then it looks like the most meaningful elements of a
Russian-Ukrainian peace deal and subsequent Russian-US “New Détente”
were already agreed to in Anchorage, but contingent on Ukraine
withdrawing from Donbass. Therein lies the crux since Trump hasn’t yet
coerced Zelensky into doing so, possibly hoping that Russia will “make
more concessions” to incentivize him, but Putin might refuse and instead
keep fighting.