Jeff Rich delivers a scathing, unvarnished assessment of a leaked 28-point peace proposal, arguing that the document is not a genuine path to peace but a strategic maneuver designed to extract profit for the United States while abandoning European and Ukrainian agency. While the news cycle fixates on the mere existence of a "secret back-channel" deal, Rich cuts through the diplomatic fog to expose a plan that he claims is "D.O.A. (dead on arrival)" because it prioritizes American commercial interests over the actual cessation of hostilities.
The Architecture of a "Hustle"
Rich begins by dismantling the document's legitimacy, noting that it appears to be a US adaptation of a Russian "no paper"—a diplomatic tool used to float ideas without binding commitment. He suggests the leak itself may be a sabotage attempt by a departing US envoy, but his primary focus is on the content's inherent flaws. The author argues that the plan is "heavily skewed to US interests" and fails to involve the very nations most affected by the conflict in the settlement process.
"This is a plan for the USA to leave the war and to get the loot, as I have been arguing has been the USA strategy since February."
This framing is striking because it shifts the narrative from a failed diplomatic effort to a calculated extraction strategy. Rich posits that the administration is not seeking a sustainable peace but rather a mechanism to exit the conflict while securing economic dominance. He points to the exclusion of the European Union and the United Kingdom from key decision-making clauses as evidence that the US is treating its allies as subordinate rather than partners. Critics might note that in high-stakes geopolitics, back-channeling is often a necessary precursor to formal talks, yet Rich's skepticism holds weight given the plan's disregard for the Minsk agreements' lesson: that ignoring the on-the-ground realities of sovereignty and security guarantees leads to inevitable collapse.
The Illusion of Security Guarantees
The commentary turns to the specific clauses regarding security, where Rich identifies a fundamental contradiction. The plan proposes a "non-aggression agreement" between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe, yet simultaneously places the United States as the sole mediator and guarantor. Rich calls clause 4, which envisions a dialogue mediated by the US Commander of NATO, "Astonishing nonsense."
"The first of five clauses on European/Ukraine security begins with a dishonest denial of USA involvement in the failure to negotiate collective security since 1991."
Rich's analysis here is sharp; he highlights how the document attempts to rewrite history to absolve the executive branch of past failures while offering vague, unenforceable promises for the future. The plan demands Ukraine enshrine in its constitution that it will not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move Rich identifies as the "absolute bottom line of Russia," yet the US offers no clarity on what "reliable security guarantees" actually entail for Kyiv. This ambiguity is dangerous. In a conflict where the human cost is measured in tens of thousands of lives, offering a security guarantee that can be voided if Ukraine "without cause launches a missile" creates a precarious peace that favors the aggressor's narrative.
"This clause represents the United States accident insurance policy - 'compensation for the guarantee'.. We break the peace and you pay for it."
This metaphor of "accident insurance" is the piece's most damning indictment of the proposal. It suggests that the US is not acting as a neutral peacemaker but as a vendor selling protection with a fine print that penalizes the victim for self-defense.
The Economics of Occupation
Perhaps the most controversial section of Rich's commentary concerns the financial terms of the peace plan. The document proposes using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets to fund reconstruction, with the United States claiming 50% of the profits. Rich does not mince words about the implications of this arrangement.
"Remarkably, the USA is proposing to redeploy Russian frozen assets to US control and to take half the profits. Again the conflict between EU and USA is evident."
Rich argues that the plan is less about rebuilding Ukraine and more about "control and to profit from reconstruction." He notes that the proposal includes joint US-Russian ventures in energy and mining, suggesting a "squabble over loot and war debt" that sidelines the actual needs of the Ukrainian people. This economic framing is crucial. It reveals that the "peace" being sold is a business deal where the reconstruction of a war-torn nation becomes a revenue stream for foreign powers.
"The squabble over loot and war debt continues."
While Rich acknowledges that reconstruction funds are desperately needed, his critique exposes a moral hazard: using frozen assets for profit-sharing rather than direct humanitarian aid or infrastructure repair undermines the legitimacy of the entire process. A counterargument worth considering is that without US leadership, no such massive capital injection would occur, but Rich's point remains that the terms of engagement are fundamentally exploitative.
Territorial Realities and Human Cost
On the issue of territory, the plan proposes the de facto recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as Russian, with a frozen conflict line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Rich notes that this leads to a "de facto agreement confined to four territories," effectively codifying the results of military aggression.
"This proposal leads to a de facto agreement confined to four territories with negotiation over scope of withdrawal zone."
The author connects this to the broader failure of the peace process: it ignores the self-determination of the populations living in these contested areas and the profound human suffering caused by the displacement. By focusing on "neutral demilitarised buffer zones" and "de facto recognition," the plan treats territory as a chessboard to be moved rather than homes where families have been uprooted. Rich's tone here is grave, reminding the reader that these clauses represent the formalization of a war that has already claimed countless civilian lives.
"It is not based on any form basis for conflict settlement."
This final assessment underscores the author's central thesis: the 28-point plan is a political document designed for domestic US consumption and corporate gain, not a viable roadmap for ending a war that has devastated a sovereign nation.
Bottom Line
Jeff Rich's commentary is a necessary corrective to the diplomatic euphoria surrounding leaked peace plans, exposing the document as a vehicle for US economic extraction rather than a genuine resolution. While his skepticism of the "hustle" is compelling, the piece's greatest strength lies in its refusal to accept vague security guarantees as a substitute for the hard truths of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The reader must watch for whether the administration can pivot from this profit-driven draft to a framework that actually centers the safety and agency of the Ukrainian people.