On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt forcefully responded to critics of President Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine. In her remarks, delivered in the White House briefing room, she highlighted an alarming trend. Certain U.S. senators and defense industry advocates, Leavitt asserted, are actively thwarting a genuine pathway to peace, driven more by personal interests than by national security.
Leavitt’s comments addressed mounting criticism directed at the Trump administration’s approach. Senators with close ties to the defense sector lambasted the plan as overly accommodating to Russia. “We’re seeing criticism from people who have no idea what they’re talking about—or worse, who are pushing their own agenda,” she stated emphatically. She dismissed the notion that the U.S. is failing to engage both sides in the conflict, characterizing that view as “a complete and total fallacy.”
Her statements resonated widely across conservative media platforms. One tweet, which quickly went viral, declared that Leavitt had “nuked the warmongers and Military Industrial Complex senators,” suggesting that a significant segment of the electorate perceives ongoing foreign conflicts as beneficial to defense contractors rather than aligned with American interests.
The peace proposal, introduced in June and further developed in Geneva, seeks to resolve a conflict that has resulted in unparalleled devastation. As the war continues, it has taken hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The plan proposes limited NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine, contingent upon Kyiv accepting concessions such as relinquishing control over Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk. In addition, Ukraine would agree to cap its military forces and constitutionally commit to neutrality, ruling out NATO membership.
In a potential compromise, Russia would receive phased sanctions relief and international acknowledgment of territories it has occupied or claimed in the ongoing conflict. The plan also envisions a demilitarized zone in Donetsk under Russian control, monitored by a joint security body to ensure compliance.
Following the latest discussions in Geneva, Leavitt reported that Ukraine agreed to “the vast majority” of the provisions contained in the peace plan. “Everybody feels optimistic about what happened,” she said, underscoring a sense of progress. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy verified receipt of the proposal during a recent visit from U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. “We’re geared up for clear and honest work,” he said, indicating readiness for serious negotiations.
Despite these hopeful developments, violence remains a grim backdrop. Just a day before the proposal was presented to Kyiv, Russian missile strikes in Ternopil resulted in civilian casualties. Ukraine retaliated with drone attacks on Russian cities, escalating the conflict further. Civilians, caught in the crossfire, continue to suffer the consequences.
European officials have voiced sharp criticism of the proposed plan. EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas warned that it would reward Russian aggression, asserting, “The pressure must be on the aggressor, not on the victim.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot bluntly added, “Peace cannot mean capitulation… Ukrainians will never accept any form of capitulation.” Such sentiments illustrate widespread concern about the implications of the proposal for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Nonetheless, U.S. officials involved in crafting the initiative are confident in its basis. They contend it developed in direct consultation with Ukrainian leadership, although critics in Washington remain skeptical. Lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee—particularly those affiliated with defense contractors—have cited fears that the concessions inherent in the plan could set dangerous precedents in international relations. They argue it undermines not just Ukraine’s sovereignty but broader global stability.
Leavitt, however, defended the strategy as a realistic response to the prolonged conflict. “This plan was crafted to reflect the realities of the situation after five years of devastating war,” she said, emphasizing the need for a solution where both parties gain. She pointed out the unsustainable nature of delivering military support without tangible progress toward diplomacy.
Interestingly, the administration sees parallels between the Ukraine negotiations and earlier efforts to de-escalate conflicts elsewhere, such as Gaza. Sources indicate that the groundwork for the Ukraine plan began on a flight from Israel, where Trump directed key team members to create a roadmap similar to past successful diplomatic efforts.
Even Trump himself has hinted at positive developments in a Truth Social post, expressing cautious optimism about the ongoing peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. “Is it really possible that big progress is being made in Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine?” he mused, indicating a belief that the tide might be turning.
However, as negotiations await formal Russian confirmation, doubts linger about whether sanctions relief is an acceptable price for peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has yet to offer a definitive statement, but Russian officials appear to perceive the Trump administration’s overture as acknowledgment of the existing reality on the ground.
While high-stakes discussions unfold, the humanitarian toll continues to mount. In Kyiv, daily blackouts due to Russian strikes leave many without basic amenities. Hospitals are stretched thin, and millions remain displaced under Russian pressure. The Trump administration argues these dire conditions underscore the urgency for a diplomatic resolution. “We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of peace,” said Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, framing the need for compromise as essential to avoiding further destruction.
For Leavitt, unambiguous messaging seems to be the chosen course of action. “Some people want to keep this war going,” she noted. “Some people benefit from that. But this president is focused on ending the war—not winning a contract, not winning a news cycle, but ending the war.” This commitment to a resolution, against the specter of criticism and entrenched interests, marks a significant aspect of the present discourse surrounding the ongoing conflict.
"*" indicates required fields
