“Peace” That Is Not Peace: Why the November 20/21, 2025 Plan Is Budapest 2.0 — and a De Facto Capitulation of Ukraine
The peace plan published on November 20/21, 2025 was meant to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. In reality, it repeats the mistakes of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and places the victim of aggression in the position of the side expected to make concessions. It is a plan more absurd and dangerous than “peaceful.”
1. A peace plan that resembles an ultimatum more than a settlement
The document presented under the auspices of Moscow and Washington contains proposals that effectively amount to:
- recognition of Russian territorial gains, at least temporarily,
- deferring the question of the status of occupied regions, which in practice freezes the conflict on terms imposed by the aggressor,
- security guarantees provided jointly by the United States and Russia, even though such guarantees already existed when Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons,
- obligations imposed on Ukraine to limit certain military and political decisions, allegedly to “stabilize the region.”
Does this sound familiar?
Yes — because it is exactly the same scheme that once led to the largest war in Europe since 1945.
2. Budapest 1994 → 2025: The return of guarantees that failed
In 1994, Ukraine surrendered the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for:
- inviolability of its borders,
- respect for sovereignty,
- security guarantees.
Who guaranteed them?
Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom.
Who violated the agreement first?
Russia — in 2014, and definitively in 2022.
Who failed to ensure Ukraine’s security?
The United States and the United Kingdom, because the Budapest Memorandum had no enforcement mechanism.
And now, in 2025, the world is presented with a plan in which:
- Russia — the aggressor — once again appears as a guarantor of peace,
- the United States — which could not enforce earlier guarantees — again declares protection,
- and Ukraine — the victim — is expected for the second time to trust the same mechanism.
This is not diplomacy.
This is a repeat of history in its most dangerous form.
3. Why the 2025 plan is a de facto capitulation of Ukraine
a) It legitimizes aggression carried out by force
Any plan that accepts the “current line of control” means that the aggressor receives a reward for using military force.
b) It limits Ukraine’s sovereignty
Provisions about “neutral zones” and restrictions on certain military capabilities deprive Ukraine of its right to self-defense.
c) It creates a dangerous illusion of security
Security guarantees signed by Russia are worth exactly as much as the ones from 1994: nothing.
d) It removes responsibility from the aggressor and transfers it to the victim
If Ukraine refuses — it will be portrayed as “reluctant to achieve peace.”
A classic Russian propaganda tactic.
4. A global signal: Borders can be changed by force
If this plan were adopted, the message to the world would be clear:
- Nuclear weapons ensure safety; giving them up leads to disaster.
(Dangerous lesson for Iran and North Korea.) - The West is tired and ready for concessions.
(Encouraging for China regarding Taiwan.) - Russia can return to the negotiating table as a partner, not an aggressor.
(This legitimizes the Kremlin after the largest aggression in Europe since WWII.)
5. Peace or freezing? A fundamental difference
Peace means:
withdrawal of troops, sovereignty, legal borders, reparations, and real security.
The November 2025 plan means:
freezing the conflict, giving up territory, legitimizing aggression, false guarantees,
and shifting responsibility onto Ukraine.
This is not peace.
It is a pause before the next war.
6. Why Ukraine cannot accept such a plan
Because every “temporary” line of occupation becomes a permanent one.
Because Russia used the same method in Moldova, Georgia, and Syria.
Because “neutrality” for Ukraine would mean a gradual dismantling of the state.
Because the Kremlin never stops on its own.
And above all:
Ukraine has the legal right to full sovereignty and the restoration of its borders.
7. Conclusion: This is not a peace plan — it is an example of Western strategic blindness
The world does not need another Budapest Memorandum.
It does not need peace plans written for election cycles.
It does not need compromises that create future wars.
It needs:
clarity, enforceable guarantees, recognition of the aggressor,
respect for international law,
and awareness that peace built on illusions is not peace — it is a prelude to disaster.
The plan of November 20/21, 2025 is not a path to peace.
It is a warning sign.
Sources:
Author: MJ