The Lawfare Podcast: Anastasiia Lapatina and Eric Ciaramella Talk Russia, Ukraine, and Trump (Nov 26, 2025)

Main Theme

This episode features a deep-dive discussion into the ongoing and multifaceted peace negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States—specifically under the Trump administration. Hosted by Benjamin Wittes, with guests Anastasiia Lapatina (Lawfare Ukraine Fellow) and Eric Ciaramella (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), the conversation unpacks the recent diplomatic roller coaster, a contentious 28-point peace plan, the overlapping layers of dysfunction in both the Ukrainian and U.S. governments, and the broader strategic challenges facing Ukraine amidst domestic scandal and international pressure.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The "Trump Roller Coaster" and Evolving Peace Negotiations

• Background and context:

  • The Trump administration fluctuates between threats and conciliatory moves regarding Russia and Ukraine, leading to unpredictability for both allies and adversaries (04:33).
  • Recent sanctions on Russian oil companies (Rosneft and Lukoil) were seen as a moment of firmness, quickly followed by negotiation overtures and the controversial 28-point peace plan (04:33-09:08).
  • The U.S. administration's overarching goal appeared to be ending the conflict quickly, even at the possible expense of Ukrainian interests (02:51, 47:09).

• Key quote:

  • "We're all riding this Trump roller coaster. ...Moments of panic followed by moments of relief, any day of the week bringing a completely different story."
    — Eric Ciaramella (04:33)

2. Ukrainian Domestic Crisis and Reactions

• Energy sector corruption scandal:

  • Major fallout within Zelenskyy's government after anti-corruption agencies unveiled a large-scale embezzlement scheme involving close associates and top ministers (10:04).
  • This simultaneously fueled a political crisis and created fertile ground for doubts about Ukraine’s stability during sensitive negotiations (10:04-14:50).

• Zelenskyy's crisis speech:

  • President Zelenskyy addressed the nation, emphasizing the gravity of the current moment: “one of the hardest moments in our history... Either the loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner… the difficult 28 points or an extremely hard winter…” (12:20-13:34).

• Memorable moment:

  • Anastasiia Lapatina recalls, “I remember sending the link of that to our work chat, being like, I’m scared...as a Ukrainian citizen, you know, journalists' head off, I was scared...” (13:34)

3. Why This Peace Plan Felt Different

• The specifics of the 28-point plan:

  • Unlike previous peace plan proposals, this document was detailed and, crucially, presented as a U.S. position, requiring a fast response from Ukraine (14:50).
  • Multiple American officials (including Marco Rubio) vacillated on whether it was truly a U.S. or Russian draft, adding confusion (14:50-16:45).
  • The urgency and detail, plus direct communication from Trump demanding an answer by Thanksgiving, heightened the stakes (14:50-16:45).

• Key quote:

  • “Some of the specificity of it seems a little different. ...the United States has adopted Russia’s position. ...It’s presenting an ultimatum of sorts to Ukraine, not to Russia.”
    — Benjamin Wittes (14:50)

4. Anatomy of the Plan(s) and Major Issues

• Ciaramella lays out four main baskets:

  • Territory: The most sensitive topic, especially regarding the Donetsk region—the U.S. plan demanded Ukrainian withdrawal, while European proposals want to freeze lines of control (16:45-22:45).
  • Security Guarantees: Vague and contradictory; promises of NATO-like commitments but with questionable enforceability and details (22:45-24:50).
  • Demilitarization: Proposals restrict Ukrainian military size and capacity, with no reciprocal limitations for Russia—raising questions about verification and sovereignty (24:50-25:57).
  • Economic Reconstruction: Described as “cockamamie,” the original scheme splits seized Russian assets for rebuilding via investment funds—a “very Trumpian, very bizarre” concept (25:57).
  • Other issues: E.g., elections under martial law, minority rights “BS,” nuclear agreements, and reintegration of Russia into the global system were thrown in haphazardly (26:41-28:00).

• Quote highlights:

  • “The concessions Ukraine was purportedly on the hook to make were much more specific and fleshed out than anything Russia was on the hook for.”
    — Eric Ciaramella (16:45)
  • “...the structure of it is designed to force all of these domestically explosive concessions and issues on the Ukrainians while making Russia not on the hook to do very much of anything...”
    — Eric Ciaramella (28:00)

5. Domestic Ukrainian Political Maneuvering

• Zelenskyy’s attempts to use crisis for unity:

  • Lapatina outlines how Zelenskyy used the timing of the international crisis to distract from the domestic corruption scandal, urging unity and trying to rein in political dissent (31:42-38:13).
  • Calls for the removal of his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, were widespread but ignored by Zelenskyy (32:52).
  • The crisis gave Zelenskyy cover to avoid deeper reforms or firings and shift focus to external threats (35:28-38:13).

• Memorable exchange:

  • Wittes: “More of a Rasputin figure than an Eminence Grise…like, people love to attribute everything they don’t like about Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the sort of evil machinations of Andrei Yermak.” (34:19)
  • Lapatina: “...he’s really an extremely powerful figure...you cannot really become a minister in the Ukrainian cabinet unless Yermak is okay with you becoming a minister.” (35:28)

6. U.S. Government Dysfunction

• Confusion over who represents U.S. policy:
  • Multiple channels and actors (Steve Witkoff, J.D. Vance, Dan Driscoll, Marco Rubio) often working at cross-purposes, sometimes “detached from the rest of the government” (39:23).
  • Policy “drafts” sometimes rumored to have Russian input; leadership (including Trump) “floating above the details” (39:23-45:02).
  • Constant reversals and lack of clear communication or accountability—a “genuine opportunity” squandered (43:52-45:02).

7. Where U.S.-Ukrainian Relations Stand Now

• Transactional, unstable partnership:

  • Both guests agree real trust and strategic partnership are in short supply (47:09-50:54).
  • The U.S. seems primarily concerned with ending the war quickly, not with the substance or fairness of any deal (47:09, 50:54).
  • Ukraine’s leadership must balance international pressure with intense domestic constraints—any deal perceived as capitulation could lead to unrest or violence (47:39-48:45).

• Quote:

  • “The Ukrainian side does not want to sign a capitulation because it can't...it's just gonna be complete political suicide. And I think that can lead to real political violence in the country, and everybody knows it.”
    — Anastasiia Lapatina (48:08)

8. The Need for European Leadership and Strategy

• Ciaramella’s prescription:
  • Encourages more proactive and detailed European/Ukrainian coordination rather than reactive responses to U.S. missteps (51:30-56:00).
  • Current efforts are lacking both on battlefield strategy and diplomatic vision (52:26-56:00).
  • Russia, meanwhile, feels little pressure to moderate, viewing the U.S. as pliable and the war’s terms as dictated on its terms (56:00-56:41).

9. What Comes Next?

• Lapatina’s focus:

  • She’s watching for actual, public positions and responses from Ukrainian officials, not only for what is said to international partners (57:56-59:17).

• Ciaramella’s outlook:

  • Until the U.S. and Europe recalibrate to pressure Russia meaningfully—not Ukraine—he expects the diplomatic effort to flounder (56:41-57:52).

Timestamps of Important Segments

• 02:51 — U.S. goal: Rapid resolution, little concern for substance
• 04:33 — “Trump roller coaster” foreign policy and sanctions background
• 10:04 — Ukrainian domestic crisis: Energy corruption scandal explained
• 12:20 — Zelenskyy’s emergency speech: National crossroads
• 16:45 — Analysis of the peace deal structure; why the current plan is different
• 22:45 — Details on security guarantees, demilitarization, economics, and “other” plan components
• 28:00 — The peace plan: “Domestically explosive concessions for Ukraine, little for Russia”
• 31:42 — Zelenskyy’s use of the crisis for political cover
• 34:19-35:28 — Debate on the role and power of Andriy Yermak
• 39:23 — U.S. policy confusion and multiple, conflicting envoys
• 47:09 — Strategic objectives: U.S. (quick result) vs. Ukraine (survival, dignity)
• 48:08 — Political risks to Ukraine of accepting a bad deal
• 50:54-56:41 — Ciaramella on the limits of the bilateral relationship and the need for genuine European strategy
• 57:56 — Lapatina: Awaiting concrete, public Ukrainian reactions and explanations

Notable Quotes & Speaker Attribution

• “We're all riding this Trump roller coaster...any day of the week could bring a completely different story.”
  — Eric Ciaramella (04:33)

• “It’s just another peace plan. We’ve been here before. It’s not the first time the Americans look like they’re trying to shove down Ukraine’s throat some terrible plan.”
  — Anastasiia Lapatina (12:20)

• “The concessions Ukraine was purportedly on the hook to make were much more specific and fleshed out than anything Russia was on the hook for.”
  — Eric Ciaramella (16:45)

• “The crux of the Trump administration, to the best of my understanding, really does not seem to care all that much about what's actually in the document as long as both sides sign it and they can sell it as a win.”
  — Anastasiia Lapatina (02:51, 47:09)

• “It's really...designed to force all of these domestically explosive concessions and issues on the Ukrainians, while making Russia not on the hook to do very much of anything...”
  — Eric Ciaramella (28:00)

• “...the Ukrainian side does not want to sign a capitulation because it can't...it's just gonna be complete political suicide.”
  — Anastasiia Lapatina (48:08)

Conclusion

This episode paints a vivid, sometimes chaotic picture of the intersection between U.S. foreign policy turbulence, Ukraine’s internal political storm, and Russia’s unyielding position. It shows that while the Trump administration is eager for a “deal,” Ukraine’s government is juggling existential pressures both at home and abroad. Ultimately, both speakers urge the need for more coherent, principled, and proactive strategies—especially from Europe and the U.S.—to counter Russia’s advantage and prevent a lopsided, unstable peace.