The discussion surrounding a potential peace plan for Russia’s war against Ukraine is moving beyond informal talks and increasingly becoming the subject of public criticism from American experts. Particularly telling is the position of Philip Gordon, the former National Security Advisor to U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. In his column for The New York Times, he openly questions the proposed format of a peace deal and advises President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to agree to it in its current form.
Gordon does not reject the idea of negotiations themselves, but he warns that the conditions offered to Ukraine could create an illusion of security without providing it in practice. He identifies the central problem as the vague and politically vulnerable security guarantees from the United States. In his view, such an agreement would likely codify a balance of power in Russia’s favor rather than effectively deterring new aggression. In this context, public criticism from an individual who recently served in the White House carries significant weight. It points to deeper doubts within the American political elite regarding the realism of the proposed peace.
Dubious Security Guarantees
Philip Gordon’s key argument is that the American security guarantees proposed to Ukraine are too conditional and lack enforcement mechanisms. Writing for The New York Times, he emphasizes that language regarding support for Ukraine in the event of a “significant, deliberate, and sustained” attack leaves far too much room for political maneuvering. In reality, this means a future U.S. administration could interpret any new Russian aggression as not falling under these obligations.
Gordon directly points to the weakness of such promises in the context of Donald Trump’s presidency, which is viewed as a key factor in the proposed peace plan. He notes that even formally signed agreements do not guarantee a real U.S. response at a critical moment. Moreover, Russia is unlikely to perceive such guarantees as a serious deterrent if the American side itself retains the option to evade action.
“To genuinely ensure its security, Ukraine would be far better off demanding concrete contributions to its ability to defend itself than security assurances that no one — and certainly not President Vladimir Putin of Russia — would ever believe,” Philip Gordon states.
In this context, the diplomat recalled that the U.S. President was willing to believe reports of an attack on Putin’s residence and reminded readers of Trump’s September statement suggesting that an incursion by Russian drones into Polish territory “could have been a mistake.”
From this perspective, a peace deal risks repeating the logic of previous agreements with Moscow, which failed to prevent a new phase of the war. This is why Gordon cautions Kyiv against signing a document based on political assurances rather than clearly defined obligations.
What Should Be Ukraine’s Priority?
Instead of dubious security guarantees, the former Harris advisor suggests that Ukraine focus on achieving concrete and measurable results. In his column, he emphasizes that real security is built not by declarations, but by resources and capabilities. Among these priorities, Gordon lists the long-term strengthening of Ukraine’s defense capacity, stable military aid, and the maintenance of strategic pressure on Russia.
He also draws attention to the economic dimension—specifically, frozen Russian assets, which could serve as a real tool for supporting Ukraine rather than a subject of abstract discussion. In this context, he considers any territorial or political concessions without clear material compensation to be strategically dangerous. Gordon also notes that the return of control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and a new weapons package would be more valuable than security guarantees.
Gordon effectively proposes a different logic of negotiations for Ukraine: not to agree to “peace for promises,” but to insist on conditions that realistically shift the balance of power. Such an approach, in his view, would not only strengthen Kyiv’s position but also make any future agreement more stable.
Conclusion
Philip Gordon’s position demonstrates that skepticism regarding the peace plan exists not only in Ukraine but also among former high-ranking U.S. officials. His warnings boil down to a simple conclusion: guarantees without clear mechanisms are not security, but a political illusion. The former advisor to Kamala Harris directly advises Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to sign an agreement that does not provide Ukraine with real leverage for defense. This stance bolsters arguments for a cautious and pragmatic approach to negotiations. A peace based on weak obligations may turn out to be merely a pause before a new escalation. In this sense, the column in The New York Times is not just a personal opinion, but a serious signal about risks that should not be ignored.
