Absolutely Not: US Strongly Denies Pushing Russian 'Wish List' as Ukraine Peace Plan

Well, talk about a storm in a teacup, or perhaps a rather serious diplomatic misunderstanding. The United States has been incredibly clear, downright emphatic even, in swatting away some rather persistent whispers making the rounds among European officials. What were these whispers about, you ask? A supposed peace plan for Ukraine, one that many found suspiciously, disturbingly, aligned with Russia's long-standing demands. Washington's message? Absolutely not. No way, no how.

The whole kerfuffle, it seems, began circulating after discussions involving Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s National Security Adviser, and some aides to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, exactly how those conversations morphed into the idea that the U.S. was secretly pushing a "Russian wish list" as a viable path to peace in Ukraine is anyone's guess, but the speculation quickly took root across European capitals. And honestly, it created quite a stir, given the deep sensitivities involved.

Let’s unpack this alleged plan for a moment, shall we? According to these unverified accounts, it envisioned a scenario where Russia would pull its troops back to the lines they held before their full-scale invasion in February 2022. Sounds reasonable on the surface, perhaps. But here's the kicker: it also supposedly included negotiations about Ukraine’s future neutrality and its potential NATO status. And that, my friends, is where alarm bells started ringing loud and clear, especially in Kyiv.

For Ukraine, such a proposal would be an absolute non-starter. Imagine being told to essentially concede aspects of your sovereignty and security future as part of a peace deal, especially after enduring such brutal aggression. Ukrainian officials have made it abundantly clear that they consider any plan rewarding Russia for its invasion, or compelling Ukraine into a neutral status against its will, completely unacceptable. They view it, quite rightly, as a dangerous precedent that would embolden aggressors worldwide.

So, what's the official word from Washington amidst all this? John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, has been unequivocal. He stressed that the U.S. policy hasn't budged one iota. "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine," he reiterated, a principle that has been a cornerstone of American diplomacy since day one of the conflict. He emphasized the U.S.'s unwavering commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, leaving absolutely no room for ambiguity.

The core of the American strategy, as repeatedly stated, is to ensure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position, both militarily and diplomatically. This means providing them with the tools and support they need to defend themselves, and ultimately, to negotiate a peace on their terms, when they are ready. The idea that Washington would be cooking up some backdoor deal, especially one that could undermine Ukraine’s long-term security aspirations, just doesn't align with their public posture, or frankly, with their actions.

It's worth remembering, too, that Russia itself has consistently pushed for Ukraine's neutrality and a guarantee that it won't join NATO. So, when these rumored plans emerged, suggesting Ukraine might receive security assurances from individual NATO countries but not full membership, well, you can see why some might draw uncomfortable parallels. But again, the U.S. is pushing back hard on the narrative that they are the architects of such a scheme.

Ultimately, this episode serves as a powerful reminder of the delicate and often turbulent nature of international diplomacy, especially during wartime. Misinformation, or even simple misinterpretations of discussions, can quickly take on a life of their own. But for now, at least according to the U.S., the message is crystal clear: Ukraine’s future is for Ukraine to decide, with unwavering American support, and not through any externally imposed "wish list," Russian or otherwise.