Russian Roulette Podcast Summary

Episode: The Latest 28-Point Peace Plan for Ukraine

Date: December 1, 2025
Host: Max Bergman (A)
Guest Co-host: Maria Snegovaya (B)
Featured Guest: Michael Kimmage, Director of the Kennan Institute

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the flurry of recent diplomatic activity around a newly leaked 28-point peace proposal for the war in Ukraine. The hosts and guest dissect the origins, content, process, and political fallout of the proposal, which appears to be heavily influenced by Russian interests and has caused confusion among stakeholders, particularly the Europeans and Ukrainians. The conversation explores what this episode reveals about the current state of U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian diplomacy, as well as broader lessons for peacemaking and transatlantic relations.

1. Setting the Scene: The 28-Point Proposal

[01:26–04:21]

• Leaked Proposal & Origins
  • Last week, a 28-point peace plan was leaked, reportedly via Kirill Dmitriev, with Steve Witkoff (U.S. special envoy) amplifying the leak.
  • The document reads as though it was written in Russian and translated to English, fueling suspicion it was drafted by Russian officials ("If you would put the proposal into Elon Musk's Grok AI, it would come back and tell you... it looked like it was originally written in Russian and had been translated into English." – Max, [02:15]).
• Immediate Reactions
  • Europeans felt blindsided and saw the plan as beneficial to Russia.
  • The White House imposed a Thanksgiving Day deadline on Ukraine to accept or reject the plan, with implications for U.S.-Ukraine relations.
  • Confusion in Geneva as Russia also did not accept the plan outright, despite its Russian-friendly provisions.
  • European anger intensified by requirements for action (release frozen Russian assets, extensive funding) without prior consultation.
• Domestic and Diplomatic Fallout
  • Marco Rubio distanced himself from the plan at the Halifax Security Conference, then walked it back.
  • After Geneva meetings, some problematic points in the proposal were reportedly softened.

2. The Style and Substance of Diplomacy

[04:21–07:37] — Michael Kimmage's Initial Take

• Haphazard Process
  • Pattern of chaotic, rushed diplomacy under the Trump administration, particularly in conflict-related negotiations.
  • Insufficient consultation, lack of a cohesive narrative, and underprepared summits (Alaska summit cited as another example).
  • "So my guess is if it were to be realized, what it would be is an operational pause on the Russian side, a sort of consolidation of position." – Michael, [10:27].
• "Madcap Diplomacy" as a Lens
  • While unsettling, this improvisational approach reveals the true positions and divisions between stakeholders (U.S., Ukraine, Europe, Russia).
  • Increased transparency about diverging interests may ultimately be useful long-term.
  • "A spotlight has been shown on our very unruly reality. And there's something a bit helpful about that." – Michael, [06:45].

3. Russian Motives and Strategies

[07:37–13:13]

• Russian Calculus
  • Russia’s real aim appears not to achieve a genuine settlement, but to deepen divisions among the U.S., Ukraine, and especially Europe.
  • If proposal were accepted, Russia could use any pause to regroup ("consolidation of position"), as in 2014–2022 with Crimea.
  • Primary Russian tactic: ensure that Ukraine, not Russia, is blamed for rejecting peace, thus muddying the waters and prolonging conflict.
  • "Putin and Zelenskyy have been competing since January 2025 to see that the other one is blamed for the failure of the negotiations." – Michael, [11:49].
  • Undermining European unity and support for Ukraine by dictating terms to be funded and enacted by European nations.

4. The European Angle: Role and Challenges

[13:13–19:12]

• European Exclusion and Irritation
  • Many proposal provisions require European action without their input ("there's a quote... from a White House official last week, basically saying, we don't care what the Europeans think." – Max, [14:06]).
  • Sidelining of Europe in critical talks on European security is both frustrating and humiliating for European states.
• Principles vs. Pragmatism
  • Ongoing debate: Should Europe and Ukraine defend international norms (sovereignty, no forced cession of territory), or prioritize a pragmatic deal that bolsters Ukraine’s European trajectory, even if it means territorial loss?
  • Unclear or absent security guarantees for Ukraine is a core flaw in the current proposal ("...one of the weaknesses of the plan as it was put forward is that there was a sentence that just sort of declared Ukraine will receive a security guarantee. Well, I mean, from the Ukrainian side, it's not sufficient to declare that. That has to be spelled out." – Michael, [16:45]).
  • Europeans must now consider who should represent their unified voice in talks—debate about the "E3" or other figures.

5. Looking Forward: European Agency and Peacemaking Philosophy

[19:12–24:03]

• Agency and Capacity
  • Europe risks becoming an object, not an agent, in geopolitics, whether vis-à-vis China or U.S.-Russia negotiations.
  • Need for consolidation—one voice or institutional representation for the EU.
  • "Principle is only salient to the degree that it can be enforced." – Michael, [23:05].
• Limits of Principle
  • While the EU leads globally in principles-based foreign policy, its leverage must catch up to its rhetoric.
• Complicating Peacemaking
  • "Blessed are the peacemakers. But there's something grubby also about peacemaking because you have to compromise on principles that are righteous." – Max, [24:03].
  • The Trump administration’s style, though problematic, forces hard conversations about tradeoffs, sovereignty, and future security arrangements.

6. Memorable Quotes and Notable Moments

On the Proposal’s Origins

• "[It] looked like it was originally written in Russian and had been translated into English." – Max Bergman, [02:15]

On the Quality of Diplomacy

• "There is an amateur hour quality to this. And maybe it's not the worst thing to just have people trying to figure things out, throw things out there... This looks like sort of a real estate thing..." – Max, [08:07]

On Blame and Negotiations

• "Putin and Zelenskyy have been competing since January 2025 to see that the other one is blamed for the failure of the negotiations." – Michael, [11:49]

On Europe’s Dilemma

• "It’s not just frustrating. I think in European capitals it’s also humiliating. And that of course works in some way to Moscow’s benefit." – Michael, [12:55]

On Principles vs. Power

• "Principle is only salient to the degree that it can be enforced." – Michael, [23:05]

On the Grubbiness of Peacemaking

• "Blessed are the peacemakers. But there’s something grubby also about peacemaking because you have to compromise on principles that are righteous." – Max, [24:03]

7. Important Segments With Timestamps

• Background & Leaked Plan: [01:26–04:21]
• Diplomatic Style & Pattern Analysis (Kimmage): [04:21–07:37]
• Russian Interests & Wedge Strategy: [10:27–13:13]
• European Reactions & Security Guarantees: [13:13–19:12]
• Prospects for European Agency: [19:12–24:03]
• Philosophy of Peacemaking/Wrap-up: [24:03–24:54]

8. Tone and Language

The conversation is candid, analytical, and occasionally wry, especially in its critique of rushed diplomacy ("amateur hour quality"), realpolitik, and European struggles to unify. The hosts hold establishment expertise but don’t shy away from frank assessments or vivid analogies (e.g., real estate deals, merry-go-round of talks).

In Summary:

This episode offers an informed, critical exploration of the latest Ukraine peace plan drama, revealing deep divisions, rushed processes, and the strategic calculation of every party involved. It highlights the challenges inherent in peacemaking—between principles and pragmatic politics—and underscores the urgent need for Europe to define its role and voice in security policy as negotiations, real or theatrical, continue.