Mick Ryan delivers a chilling assessment of a proposed peace framework, arguing that a new pact between the United States and Russia risks repeating the catastrophic errors of the Afghanistan withdrawal, but with far graver consequences for global stability. The piece's most disturbing claim is not merely that Ukraine might be sacrificed, but that the very architecture of the proposed deal—specifically its amnesty clauses and vague security guarantees—is designed to absolve war criminals and invite future aggression. For listeners tracking the shift in transatlantic security, Ryan's warning that this is less a peace plan and more a "tutorial" for authoritarian expansion in the Pacific is impossible to ignore.
The Afghanistan Precedent
Ryan anchors his argument in a stark historical parallel, drawing a direct line from the 2020 Doha Accord to the current negotiations. He notes that just as the previous administration negotiated with the Taliban "without any input from the Government of Afghanistan," the current White House appears to be crafting a deal that sidelines the very nation it claims to protect. The author writes, "The foundations were laid by the Trump administration" for the fall of Kabul, a disaster that was often blamed on the subsequent administration but rooted in earlier strategic failures.
This comparison is effective because it moves beyond partisan blame to examine a recurring institutional mindset: the prioritization of a quick exit over sustainable peace. Ryan highlights a critical failure in planning, quoting a government review that found "insufficient senior-level consideration of worst-case scenarios and how quickly those might follow." The author suggests this same lack of foresight is now being applied to Ukraine, where the stakes involve not just a regional conflict but the integrity of international borders. Critics might argue that the geopolitical context of 2025 differs significantly from 2021, yet Ryan's point about the exclusion of local agency remains a powerful indictment of the negotiation strategy.
"The proposed security guarantee is clear that only the US president decides what action would be taken in the event that it's determined there's been a Russian breach."
The Architecture of Impunity
The most repulsive element of the draft plan, according to Ryan, is the blanket amnesty it offers. He points to the text of the 28-point plan which states: "All parties to the conflict will receive full amnesty for wartime actions and agree not to file claims or pursue grievances." Ryan does not mince words, calling this a "repulsive solution" that denies justice to victims of war crimes. He argues that this clause ensures that "every single Russian war criminal is totally absolved of blame," a move that fundamentally undermines the moral basis of the international order.
Furthermore, the security guarantees offered to Ukraine are described as laughably weak. Ryan cites Ruth Deyermond, a Senior Lecturer in War Studies, to illustrate the absurdity of the proposed terms: "The proposed security guarantee requires that an armed attack by Russia would have to be significant and deliberate and sustained to merit a response." The author notes the terrifying implication that "in theory, Russia could drop a nuke on Kyiv and that wouldn't meet the criteria because the attack wouldn't be sustained." This framing exposes the deal not as a shield for Ukraine, but as a permission slip for limited aggression that falls just short of triggering a US response.
The Human and Strategic Cost
Ryan shifts focus to the human toll, describing the coming days as potentially "the worst week that Zelenskyy has experienced during his presidency." He details a convergence of crises, from military encirclement at Pokrovsk to a "declining interest in the war in Ukraine from many citizens in western nations." The author warns that forcing this deal on Ukraine "will lead to an embittered nation (towards the West) and the likely growth of a 'stab-in-the-back' narrative that will hurt Ukraine-Europe ties and only benefit Russia."
The commentary also expands the scope to the Pacific, arguing that the fallout from this European deal will be felt in Asia. Ryan posits that China is watching closely, noting that the "President of China now probably sees an opportunity to present his own version of a 28-point plan for the absorption of Taiwan." He suggests that the CCP is already preparing its people for conflict, citing a recent US-China Economic and Security Review Commission report that found a "growing divergence between China's English-language and Chinese-language propaganda about Taiwan." This connection reinforces the central thesis: a failure to uphold security norms in Europe directly emboldens aggression in the Indo-Pacific.
Bottom Line
Mick Ryan's strongest argument lies in his unflinching exposure of the deal's amnesty provisions and the exclusion of European partners, which together create a roadmap for future instability rather than peace. His analysis is most vulnerable where it assumes a uniformity of intent within the US executive branch, potentially underestimating internal bureaucratic resistance to such a radical shift. The reader must now watch whether the EU's rejection of the plan holds firm or if the pressure to close the file on Ukraine overrides the imperative of justice.