The US-backed initial peace plan would pressure Ukraine into unacceptable concessions and fracture Western unity, says former U.S. Ambassador Jim Gilmore, adding that legitimizing Russia’s territorial conquest would endanger Europe and global security.
WASHINGTON — The plan for peace in Ukraine is neither credible nor workable, said former U.S. Ambassador Jim Gilmore, who warned that Moscow appears determined to legitimize its territorial gains rather than negotiate an end to the war.
In an interview with Independence Avenue Media, Gilmore said the proposal’s terms amount to “a capitulation by Ukraine” and are designed to sow division between the United States, Europe and Ukraine. Gilmore, a former governor of the U.S. state of Virginia, served as U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) during the first Trump administration.
Gilmore dismissed the notion that the proposal originated in Washington, saying he believes it was crafted in Moscow to pressure Kyiv into concessions it cannot accept, and that no durable peace can emerge under those conditions.
Gilmore warned that European security is directly at stake. Moscow’s long-term objective is not only to destroy Ukraine, he explained, but also to restore Russia’s former sphere of influence. Europe recognizes the scale of the threat, he said, pointing to NATO allies’ increased defense spending and the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance.
“Europeans understand with clarity the danger that they’re in from this Russian aggressive state,” he said.
Gilmore also addressed questions about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s political standing following a corruption scandal in Kyiv, saying the episode should not be used to undermine Western support. He noted that Ukraine’s willingness to investigate wrongdoing demonstrates its commitment to reform.
“It would only be a problem if the scandal should prove that corruption is endemic throughout the Ukrainian government,” he said.
The following interview, recorded November 24, 2025, has been edited for length and clarity.
Ia Meurmishvili, IAM editor in chief: Governor Gilmore, where do we stand when it comes to Ukraine peace negotiations and the Ukraine peace deal? We’ve heard different versions. There have been updates. Where do we stand now?
Jim Gilmore, former U.S. ambassador to the OSCE: Well, today of course is the 24th of November. And I only mention that because we have to keep an eye on the date because things change from day to day and hour to hour. This new proposal that came forward just several days ago by surprise is now under constant discussion for the last two or three days and a great intense debate. Some people say that the Russians intended it to be an intense debate in order to divide the Europeans from the Americans, the Americans from the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians from the Europeans. …
The original 28 points that were put forward are, of course, wholly unacceptable to the Ukrainians. They should be unacceptable to the United States and to the Europeans, and I think they are. But the discussion is going on right now. [U.S.] Secretary of State [Marco] Rubio is giving indications that he thinks that progress is being made towards a ceasefire and a peace agreement. Let’s see how it comes out.
IAM: What do you think could happen next?
Gilmore: I anticipate the peace agreement not succeeding unless the Russians are prepared to surrender almost all of their major points. And so far, all they’ve done is reaffirm that they want all their major points. And the major points amount to basically a capitulation by Ukraine.
I don’t think the Ukrainians are going to do that. I’ve been to Ukraine myself. I’ve talked to many representatives of government over time, in meetings, in symposiums. They’ve indicated to me that they’re not going to give up and become a serf state of the Russians.
IAM: Do you think Russians are succeeding in, as you said earlier, separating or creating a wedge between all these partners?
Gilmore: I think there’s a great deal of confusion right now, but let’s begin [with] the question of whose plan it was in the first place. When it first came out, it was indicated that this was an American plan, and that, in fact, President Trump was giving just a short deadline for the Ukrainians to either agree with it or he would stop sharing intelligence information and stop giving support to Ukraine.
Well, I think we’ve come a long way from that just in the last 48 hours. I think that now there are constant discussions going on. The Ukrainians are working to comment on this. The Europeans have put forward a plan of their own. But at the end of the day, the Russians have rejected both the Ukrainian plan, and they’ve rejected almost the American plan, the so-called American plan. Let me be clear, I believe that this original plan was put forward by the Russians, not by the Americans.
IAM: Why is it in the U.S. interest to have major input and not go along with the version that you just mentioned that maybe was not written in the United States? What’s in it for the United States for this peace agreement to be just and lasting?
Gilmore: If an agreement could be reached where the Russians would withdraw from Ukraine, stop trying to conquer their neighbors, end these horrific attacks on civilians — which amount to war crimes — return the children that they’ve kidnapped, and stop the brutalization of their basically peaceful neighbor, then I think a really good peace agreement that would recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine would be a good thing.
But right now, I don’t think the Russians have any intention of doing that. I think that it’s perfectly obvious what’s going on here. And that is that your viewers have to keep [their] eye on what the Russians are trying to achieve. What is their political goal? What are they trying to do?
And at the end of the day, everything that they’re doing — all the way from diplomacy to military work to drones to oil sales, the economy … is directed towards a war machine, which is intended to eliminate Ukraine completely and then use that as the next starting point to rebuild the old Russian empire. That’s what they’re trying to do. I don’t think it’s desirable from the point of view of the United States, and certainly not in Ukraine, for that to occur.
IAM: I’m sure you’re watching what the Europeans are doing to show support to Ukraine. Do you think they’re doing enough? Is there more they could be doing?
Gilmore: I haven’t studied the European proposals, but what little bit I saw didn’t look all that helpful. It looked like that they were saying that instead of a 600,000-man army, Ukraine would be able to have an 800,000, or something like that, just a few more soldiers or something of that nature. …
But the key point here is that the Europeans have a tremendous stake in this. It is they who are going to be in the greatest jeopardy if Ukraine falls to the Russians. It’s they who are already under assault by a lot of sabotage and hybrid warfare. The Eastern European countries and the Western European countries that I’ve talked to are not in doubt about this. The Estonians and the other Baltic states know how dangerous this is for them. The Poles are perhaps the leading country at this point. Most of the Western European countries have decided to increase their budgets in anticipation of Russian aggression. And then, of course, there’s the political development of the greater cohesion of NATO.
The move into NATO by Finland and Sweden, in my opinion, was the most important geopolitical development since the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, I think that Europeans understand with clarity the danger that they’re in from this Russian aggressive state.
IAM: Commentators, observers, even politicians say that President Zelenskyy’s hand has been weakened tremendously since the corruption scandal came out, especially domestically. How do you look at that situation? Did that scandal have anything to do with impacting his positioning with the U.S. and European partners? Does it matter? Does it not matter?
Gilmore: Well, I think it only matters if people with a political interest make it matter. … When I was visiting Ukraine in 2021, before the Russians did their invasion, I met with about eight or 10 Cabinet ministers and leading people. And in each one, I asked them the question that I thought my American friends wanted to know the answer to, which was, are you going to be able to clean up the country from corruption so that you could then join the European Union? And the answer that they always gave me was, yes, we’re going to aggressively pursue it.
So the direct answer to your question is [that] this current so-called scandal just means that the Ukrainian government has uncovered illegality. Well, that’s what we want them to do. We want them to dig down and define corrupt situations. We don’t know anything about this case. We don’t know whether the people are innocent or guilty. We don’t know how widespread it is. But it would only be a problem if the scandal should prove that corruption is endemic throughout the Ukrainian government. That would be a problem because I think the citizens of the United States and Western Europe would then not want to support Ukraine. But so far, we haven’t seen any evidence of that. And if the Ukrainians are capturing people, arresting people who are guilty of corruption, that’s what we want them to do in the first place.
IAM: Which, I would say, is a different situation from Russia, where we don’t hear too much about Russian corruption.
Gilmore: We set standards for ourselves, and then we don’t require those same standards from Russia. And that puts us in an inherently disadvantageous position in negotiating with the Russians. We’re the ones always that are at fault, and everything they do is perfect. And that’s just not true at all. The reverse is true.
The Russians are an aggressive, fascist power that are attacking a neighbor in violation of all international standards, including the United Nations’ standards of lack of aggressive warfare and war crimes, not to mention the OSCE, where I was the ambassador. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is based upon the principles of the final act, the Helsinki Act. And at that time, the principles were set down. No aggressive warfare, peaceful solutions, no conquest, no invading other people, no trying to … annex other people’s land like [the Russians] did in Crimea. All the basic principles of the OSCE — of which, by the way, Russia remains a member of the OSCE — are in violation right now among the Russians.
IAM: How do you predict the war will develop or evolve? Will the war in Ukraine end in the foreseeable future given this peace deal?
Gilmore: I can’t foresee whether this so-called peace deal is going to go anywhere or not. I’ve already indicated that the original one was wholly unacceptable. Look at those terms. It called for the Ukrainians to cede territory the Russians haven’t even tried to conquer yet or haven’t conquered yet. Second of all, let’s remember that all this territory, including Crimea, was the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. So, we’re supposed to be bargaining to get back that which is already theirs?
And then there’s a prohibition of joining NATO. There’s a call for elections within 100 days to throw out Zelenskyy, I suppose, if he would be thrown out. Where’s the requirement that the Russians do an election? I think we need to have an election in Russia supervised by the OSCE to make sure that there are… honest elections in Russia. Why would we be doing it in Ukraine? Ukraine’s the only democracy engaged in this particular conflict here. There are other difficulties, of course — sanctions relief to the Russians, which I think they’re desperate to get. That’s why they injected it into this plan to begin with.
Ceding territory is the biggest deal, though. Why? It is against all rules of international relations to cede a territory’s sovereignty. And that maybe is the most important thing I can say to your viewers. As long as sovereignty is not recognized and Russia’s territorial conquests are not legitimated, they’re always just a temporary occupier. And whether or not they’re out in a month or a year or five years or 10 years, sooner or later, they will be out. Unless, of course, a legal recognition of the conquest is given to the Russians. That is the one principle, I think, that we should not violate.
