WASHINGTON
—
While
multiple
reports
emerged
Tuesday
that
Ukraine
and
the
US
have
a
tentative
agreement
on
a
way
to
end
the
war
with
Russia,
the
single
biggest
question
is
what
any
forthcoming
security
guarantee
will
look
like,
according
to
analysts
from
the
Atlantic
Council.
The
Trump
administration
shocked
the
world
last
week
when
it
delivered
a
28-point
“peace
plan”
to
Ukraine,
which
included
demands
that
Kyiv
cede
territory
to
Russia
that
Moscow
does
not
currently
control
and
would
ban
Ukraine
from
joining
NATO,
among
other
controversial
provisions
that
some
US
lawmakers
described
as
amounting
to
a
Russian
“wish
list.”
A
flurry
of
diplomatic
activity
followed,
leading
to
high-level
meetings
in
Geneva
and
Abu
Dhabi.
Today,
US
and
Ukrainian
officials
indicated
they
had
smoothed
over
some
of
the
most
acute
sticking
points.
But
some
remain
to
be
worked
out,
and
that’s
before
Moscow
formally
has
its
say.
White
House
press
secretary
Karoline
Leavitt
said
on
X,
“There
are
a
few
delicate,
but
not
insurmountable,
details
that
must
be
sorted
out
and
will
require
further
talks
between
Ukraine,
Russia,
and
the
United
States.”
As
talks
continue,
a
group
of
Atlantic
Council
experts
gave
an
update
on
the
situation
this
morning.
While
noting
that
no
one
has
seen
the
now-19-point
plan
in
full,
there
is
a
sense
that
this
could
be
a
turning
point
in
the
war.
Daniel
Fried,
a
former
US
ambassador
to
Poland
and
Assistant
Secretary
of
State
for
Europe,
summed
up
most
of
the
reaction
to
the
plan
by
saying,
“The
initial
draft
was
a
hot
mess.”
But
he
expressed
hope
that
the
“outline
of
a
sustainable
deal
is
there.
The
chaos,
the
rush,
the
headlines
are
distractions
…
this
is
not
the
first
time
a
US
administration
has
engaged
in
rushed
diplomacy.”
Of
course,
despite
how
negotiations
have
felt
at
times,
this
is
not
a
peace
plan
between
the
US
and
Ukraine
but
rather
one
between
Ukraine
and
Russia.
And
in
that
regard,
there
was
widespread
skepticism
that
Moscow
will
accept
anything
short
of
complete
capitulation
to
its
demands.
“From
[the]
Ukrainian
perspective,
they
don’t
see
this
19-point
plan
as
something
that
Russia
will
accept,”
said
Myroslava
Gongadze,
a
nonresident
fellow
in
Ukraine,
who
noted
she
spent
last
night
in
a
missile
shelter
due
to
Russian
attacks.
“However,
the
point
of
this
exercise
was
not
exactly
to
make
an
agreement,
but
to
throw
out
that
28
point
plan
and
put
some
Ukrainian
interest
in
a
possible
negotiation
and
show
that
Ukraine
is
really
willing
and
wants
to
discuss
a
peace.”
The
biggest
question,
the
experts
agreed,
was
what
a
security
guarantee
would
look
like
if
Ukraine
is
not
able
to
join
NATO.
It
will
be
important
for
it
to
have
real
safety
for
Kyiv
baked
in,
from
both
the
US
and
Europe.
The
original
28-point
plan
did
discuss
security
guarantees
for
Ukraine,
but
in
a
vague
way.
“From
my
perspective,
the
essential
question
we
must
ask
here
is
security
guarantees.
Who
will
be
giving
that
those
guarantees?
Who
is
being
held
accountable?”
Gongadze
said.
“So
if
the
answers
are
weak,
and
[it’s]
not
clear,
then
it’s
setting
up
Ukraine
for
another
crisis.”
Fried
noted
that
any
security
guarantee
needs
to
include
both
the
US
and
Europe.
“Whether
the
US
works
with
the
Coalition
of
the
Willing
or
NATO,
or
both,
security
guarantees
are
going
to
have
to
be
flushed
out
in
a
way
that
is
credible,”
Fried
said.
“Putin
will
hate
them.
He
will
try
to
hold
this
agreement
hostage
to
their
those
being
dropped.
So
in
the
end,
Trump
is
going
to
have
to
stare
down
Putin
to
get
his
deal
in
any
kind
of
decent
form.”
Leslie
Shedd,
a
nonresident
fellow
with
the
Council,
noted
that
depending
on
how
a
security
guarantee
is
written,
it
may
require
ratification
from
the
US
Senate.
But
even
if
that
is
not
legally
required,
it
would
send
an
important
signal
if
Congress
showed
its
support.
“Having
both
the
House
and
the
Senate
weigh
in
might
even
be
a
stronger
message
than
just
ratifying
it
as
a
treaty
through
the
Senate.
I
think
that
that
is
a
crucial
step.
I
also
think
that
it
would
pass
with
significant
bipartisan
support
in
both
chambers,”
she
said.
“There
remains
a
large
chunk
of
people
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
that
are
very
frustrated
with
Russia,
that
do
not
believe
that
Russia
is
our
friend,
and
so
I
do
think
that
there
would
be
support
for
that.”
The
Financial
Times
reported
that
the
deal
will
cap
Ukraine’s
military
at
800,000.
While
a
cap
on
forces
would
seem
to
be
a
win
for
Russia,
there
are
serious
questions
about
whether
Ukraine
could
maintain
a
force
that
large
for
any
stretch
of
time
outside
of
active
war
anyway.
Army
Secretary
Emerges
As
Key
Player
Throughout
this
process,
Army
Secretary
Dan
Driscoll
has
emerged
as
a
key
interlocutor,
a
rare
sight
for
a
service
secretary.
Driscoll
delivered
the
plan
to
Ukraine,
moved
on
to
Geneva
for
negotiations
with
European
nations,
and
then
today
traveled
to
Abu
Dhabi
for
direct
consultations
with
the
Russians
and
Ukrainians.
Driscoll’s
role
in
this
negotiation
is
unlikely
to
quite
the
rumor
mill
in
DC
that
has
tagged
him
as
a
next
defense
secretary
should
Pete
Hegseth
leave
the
Pentagon
in
the
future.
Shedd
called
Driscoll
“a
rising
star
the
administration,”
who
has
“earned
the
trust
of
the
president”
to
the
point
they’re
letting
him
take
part
in
negotiations.
“I
agree
that
it
is
certainly
unconventional,
but
President
Trump
tends
to
run
an
unconventional
cabinet,
an
unconventional
administration.
And
you
know,
I
think
that
there
are
often
very
good
parts
to
that,”
Shedd
said.
“You
don’t
want
to
keep
sending
the
same
people
back
over
and
over
again
if
you
feel
like
there’s
been
a
logjam
in
negotiation.”
Fried
agreed
that
Driscoll
seems
to
have
juice
within
the
administration,
and
said
ultimately
it’s
a
good
thing
he’s
there
as
a
result.
However,
“I
would
add
that
you
need
somebody
with
Driscoll
who
understands
the
details,
because
the
Russians
can
be
expected
to
throw
various
curveballs
disguised
as
sweeteners.
You
need
somebody
who
can
detect
the
stink
bombs
in
the
nice
wrapping.”
