America’s Leaked Ukraine “Peace Plan” Risks Repeating the Mistakes of Munich

A leaked “U.S. peace proposal” for Ukraine burst into the international conversation this week — and what followed was confusion, contradiction, and deep concern across Western capitals. American officials disowned the document almost as soon as it surfaced, but not before it exposed something far more troubling than the text itself.

On my show, I spoke with Peter Dickinson, Ukraine Editor at the Atlantic Council, to unpack what happened. Our conclusion was stark:
This proposal — despite being labelled a U.S. plan — reads far more like a Russian diplomatic document. And the disarray surrounding it suggests a dangerous drift in Western resolve.

What is at stake here is not just policy.

It is the lesson of Munich, and whether we have learned it

A “Peace Plan” Written in Russian Diplomatic Language

The leaked proposal immediately raised eyebrows because of its tone and vocabulary. It adopts Russian framing, Russian assumptions, and a Russian understanding of the conflict. It outlines territorial concessions in language that echoes the Kremlin’s narrative and accepts as legitimate the very claims Putin has used to justify invasion.

Worse still, the document appears to have been circulated as part of a U.S.–Russia bilateral conversation, with minimal involvement from allies and shockingly little input from Ukraine itself.

Ukraine was again being talked about, not talked to.

This is precisely how great powers made decisions in the 1930s. And we know how that ended.

The Dangerous Illusion That Concessions Produce Peace

Some in the West argue that Ukraine must be realistic. That the war has gone on too long. That perhaps Ukraine should surrender a portion of its territory to “stop the killing” and bring the conflict to a close.

This line of thinking mirrors Neville Chamberlain’s beliefs in 1938, when he returned from Munich, promising “peace for our time” after pressuring Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain thought he was preventing war.

In reality, he guaranteed it.
Appeasement does not satisfy dictators — it emboldens them. Concessions do not end aggression — they reward it. The cost of giving up territory is not measured in square kilometres but in future bloodshed.

Ukraine understands this better than anyone.

Those who assume life under Russian occupation will be “peaceful” are dangerously naïve.

A Fight for Identity, Not Just Land

Ukraine’s struggle is not simply about borders. It is about surviving as a nation.

For generations, Ukraine suffered under Soviet repression, forced famine, deportations, and Russification campaigns designed to erase its identity. Today, in Russian-occupied territories, speaking Ukrainian or teaching Ukrainian literature can lead to arrest, torture, or execution. Ukrainian children are abducted and taken into Russia to be re-educated.

This is not hypothetical. It is happening now.

That is why any proposal built around territorial concessions is morally bankrupt. It would condemn millions to cultural eradication and hand Putin a foundation for future aggression.

A real peace plan must include:
• The withdrawal of Russian forces
• Restoration of Ukraine’s borders
• Return of abducted children
• Accountability for genocide and war crimes
• Enforceable security guarantees backed by the West

Anything less is not peace — it’s postponement.

Why Security Guarantees Alone Won’t Work

Defenders of the leaked proposal argue that Ukraine could trade land for “ironclad” Western guarantees. But Ukrainians have heard this promise before.

In 1994, under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of its territorial integrity.

Twenty years later, Russia invaded Crimea.
And in 2022, it attempted to erase Ukraine altogether.

A piece of paper did not protect Ukraine then, and it will not protect Ukraine now — especially if Russian troops remain sitting on Ukrainian soil, closer to Kyiv than ever.

Guarantees that ratify occupation are not guarantees.
They are invitations for future war.

Dictators Don’t Stop Until They’re Stopped

History is brutally clear: dictators probe until they meet resistance.

Hitler did not stop at the Sudetenland.
He took the rest of Czechoslovakia months later.
Then Poland. Then Europe.

Putin has followed the same arc.
He invaded Georgia in 2008.
Crimea and the Donbas in 2014.
And all of Ukraine in 2022.

He has said openly that Ukraine is not a real country.
That Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.”
That the collapse of the Soviet Union was a “historical tragedy.”

Dictators do not stop because you give them something.
They stop when the free world decides they must.

Why Russia Wants a Deal Now

The battlefield reality is critical to understanding Russia’s sudden interest in negotiation.

Despite horrific losses and a long war, Russia has failed to achieve its strategic aims. Ukraine remains sovereign. Its army is intact. Its society is motivated. Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy and military infrastructure are imposing real costs.

Russia wants a pause — not peace.

It wants time to rebuild, rearm, and try again.

A deal that locks in territorial gains now would give Putin exactly what Chamberlain gave Hitler: validation, momentum, and a strategic platform for future aggression.

Ukraine Is Not Asking the West to Fight Its War — Only Not to Help Putin Win It

This is a critical point the West must remember:
Ukraine is not asking American or Canadian soldiers to fight. Ukraine is not asking for troops on the ground.
Ukraine is asking for weapons, ammunition, and political courage.

The choice before us is not between war and peace.

It is between stopping aggression now or fighting a stronger dictatorship later.
Choosing the path of least resistance — the path of dishonour — will ensure greater danger tomorrow.

We Don’t Need Another Chamberlain. We Need a Churchill.

In moments like this, it is tempting to reach for compromise. To say: “This war has gone on long enough. Let’s give Putin something and move on.”

But that is the voice of Munich.
That is the language of appeasement.

The harder path — but the right one — is the path Churchill understood:
Peace is not achieved by feeding small nations to large predators.
Peace is achieved by standing firm against aggression.

This is a defining moment for the West.
A test of whether we believe in sovereignty, freedom, and the right of nations to exist — or whether we simply find those principles inconvenient when they become costly.

History is watching.
So is Ukraine.

The leaked “peace plan” shows the temptation to appease remains strong.
Our responsibility is to reject it — clearly, unequivocally, and with the full weight of leadership that this moment demands.

Because the lesson of Munich is simple:
If you reward aggression today, you guarantee catastrophe tomorrow.

And because the lesson of Churchill is equally clear:
Strength is the only real path to peace.

Tune in to Brian Crombie, host of The Brian Crombie Hour, at www.briancrombie.com or on all major podcast platforms.

Photo: OLM Staff