Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, two of Donald Trump advisers, elaborated a plan to stop the Russian war against Ukraine. The plan involves de facto freezing the conflict along the contact line and initiating direct talks between #Moscow and Kyiv. It proposes putting off NATO membership for Ukraine for an extended period while continuing to arm Ukraine "to ensure Russia makes no further advances." It also includes limited sanction relief and, if an agreement is reached, placing levies on Russian energy sales to fund Ukrainian reconstruction.

What would the Russian reaction be had Trump won the office and agreed to go forward with this plan?

There will be several problems with this plan, judging from Moscow's perspective:
- Putin does not want to freeze the conflict, especially since he currently believes Russia has the upper hand and sees no reason to halt military pressure. Even if Russia cannot significantly advance on the battlefield, it can continue to target Ukraine's energy sector, further exhausting society. In Moscow's view, the threat of increased support for Ukraine will not significantly alter the existing situation or current threats.

- The idea of putting off Ukraine’s NATO membership for an "extended period" has already been repeatedly rejected by Putin; at the beginning of the war, a proposal for a 25-year suspension was actively discussed. He insists that Russia needs "ironclad" guarantees and is more convinced now than in 2022 that he can secure them. I am very skeptical that this can change while Putin remains in office.

- This plan overlooks the core issue of the conflict: Putin aims to dismantle the anti-Russia project in Ukraine. For him it's not about territory but about ensuring Ukraine becomes "friendly." I don't think it's achievable (which is why Putin's war is doomed), but it remains Putin's primary and most compelling motivation for the war.

- The intention to continue arming Ukraine will be particularly unacceptable and is likely to be immediately rejected.

- The proposal to finance Ukrainian reconstruction through Russian energy sales could only be taken seriously in the event of a Russian defeat—which seems unlikely—or a regime change.

- The very approach of this plan, which suggests "dictating" terms to Russia (yes, and to Ukraine too), will be met with significant resentment. The Russian leadership is convinced that Russia cannot lose, regardless of the cost, and is ready to resort to nuclear escalation should it face a more substantial military threat.

All this is not to say that the plan is inherently bad or good. Objectively, Moscow's reaction will likely be negative, even though the proposal may seem to benefit Russia and disadvantage Ukraine. The military costs for Russia are not substantial enough to make Putin reconsider his own "plan."

However, the proposal has a specific feature that might appeal to Putin: it initiates a new geopolitical game where Moscow could have much more room to maneuver. The plan compels Ukraine to cease resistance—exactly what Putin currently desires. It mandates direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow, which, in Putin’s view, could weaken Ukraine domestically and might lead back to discussions akin to the Istanbul agreements of April 2022. The plan could be seen as a tactical opportunity, a starting point for a new geopolitical scenario in which an exhausted Ukraine would have to reassess its domestic political situation, becoming more susceptible to Russian influence and more pliable. Thus, the Kremlin might cautiously engage with this new strategy while remaining aware of the plan’s potential shortcomings.

And finally, the elephant in the room: the plan itself underscores the significant potential for further escalation that may follow Trump’s election, as a failed peace plan could prove to be more dangerous than no plan at all.