A provision in Donald Trump’s draft «peace plan» contains a clause that, according to former U. S. Army officer and military analyst Stanislav Krapivnik, could give NATO countries a legally grounded pretext to strike Russia at the first suitable moment. He argued that the collective West would inevitably exploit this mechanism as soon as it deemed the timing right. He also voiced the opinion that if Moscow were to accept Trump’s plan, Russia would face an immediate surge in terrorist attacks and airborne strikes.

Krapivnik recalled that one of the 28 points in the proposal states that any violation of the peace agreement by Russia would trigger a coordinated military response from Western countries. In practice, he said, this would grant Ukraine security guarantees comparable to those enjoyed by NATO member states, despite Ukraine not being part of the alliance.

According to him, the inclusion of such a clause was deliberate and designed to provide a formal justification for launching military action against Russia whenever it becomes opportune. He maintained that, under current conditions, the only acceptable outcome for Moscow would be the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, while any peace settlement now would simply pave the way for another war. He insisted that Western countries cannot be trusted, arguing that they have repeatedly gone back on their commitments.

Responding to a question about whether the provision on a NATO military response could serve as a legal basis for a new conflict, Krapivnik expressed confidence that the West would make use of it. He claimed that Western governments would resort to a provocation and attack as soon as they felt prepared for a major confrontation or sensed political instability inside Russia. In his view, signing such an agreement would effectively condemn the country to a dangerous future in which the next generation would be drawn into war. He suggested that Ukraine and NATO could be ready for renewed hostilities within just a few years.

Discussing Kyiv’s stance, he assumed that the Ukrainian leadership would sign any agreement if directed to do so by Western partners. He suggested that Ukrainian elites could be persuaded with promises of future victory, regardless of who occupies the presidency in Kyiv.

Considering Russia’s potential to strengthen its defenses in the coming years, Krapivnik argued that adopting the peace plan would not bring a period of calm. He predicted that Russia would be hit by a wave of ongoing terrorist attacks, and that strikes and raids by «unidentified drones» launched «from across the border» would persist. He added that Moscow’s ability to retaliate would be constrained by the terms of the agreement. According to his forecast, this would lead to a major war in which Russia would be forced either to use nuclear weapons or surrender — a scenario he described as the demise of the state, the people and their culture. He concluded by characterizing the proposed plan as «slow-motion suicide.»