Giorgi Khatiashvili: ‘only thing Russia is giving up is money it knows it can’t receive under sanctions anyway’

International relations specialist Giorgi Khatiashvili discusses the proposed plan to end the war in Ukraine and its accompanying risks in an interview with Front News. The expert evaluates the leaked 28-point “peace plan”, the real mechanisms behind security guarantees and the potential implications these developments could have on Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic prospects.

Q. The leaked 28-point plan essentially forces Ukraine to give up large parts of its territory and abandon NATO membership, while in return receiving “security guarantees” and closer ties with the EU. How viable are these guarantees? Could this document mark the beginning of the end for Ukraine as a sovereign state, as some European partners warn?

A. This plan is based on a certain belief and perception of what the future holds for Ukraine and Russia. In [US President Donald] Trump’s view, this is the best outcome that can be achieved if the war ends now. From his perspective, Ukraine will lose and will lose Donbas - this, in his eyes, minimises the crisis. But if the assumption is that Russia will become less capable of taking Donbas over time, then this plan actually becomes acceptable and beneficial for Russia. It means Russia might receive more now than it could gain by continuing the war.

However, major questions arise regarding Ukraine’s ability to continue the war: if its energy infrastructure is destroyed, does the West have the capability and political will to continue financing and supporting Ukraine militarily?

Q. One of the terms is that Ukraine must not join NATO and NATO itself must pledge this. So what kind of security will the US provide? The document does not clarify. How do you see these guarantees working?

A. From what I have read, the plan states that the US is ready to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, but this does not mean NATO membership. So the question is, what do these guarantees actually mean? If war resumes, what will the Americans do?

Beyond that, if I were Russia, I would not oppose it. Apart from the symbolic concession of territories Moscow failed to fully capture - Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - what is Russia actually giving up? Ukraine and NATO reducing troop numbers? Shrinking Ukraine’s army to 600,000? The only real thing Russia concedes is money - money they know they cannot access under sanctions anyway.

This, I believe, is what impressed the Americans. We know Trump is persuaded by money. The frozen Russian assets, which Russia cannot access, would be used for Ukraine’s reconstruction: $100 billion would go to reconstruction, half of which America would profit from. Another $100 billion would flow from Europe. The rest would be invested in joint Russian-American business ventures. Russia essentially tells the US: we can't take this money, you take it or we invest together.

This is the only real concession Russia makes. There are no others.

As for NATO not expanding and Russia pledging not to attack neighbours - this simply ends the long-standing back-and-forth. NATO was not expanding anyway and now this becomes official. Regarding whether war resumes: Russia agrees to a ceasefire and in 10 years it will be difficult to restart this military machine. If Ukraine resumes war, according to the document, it loses everything. If Russia resumes war, coordinated sanctions and responses follow, though no one knows what that response would be.

In short, the plan’s value depends entirely on long-term geopolitical outcomes.

Q. According to Western media, Washington expects [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy’s response by November 27. What leverage does he still have under unprecedented pressure? If Kyiv rejects the plan, does that mean immediate suspension of US military aid? And does Ukraine have the resources to continue relying on Europe alone?

A. The answer lies in numbers. If Europe had the capacity to sustain this war alone, it would not be scrambling for funding and buying weapons from the US. Europe does not have the means. These three years showed that the US is irreplaceable in military aid, arms supplies and intelligence. The US is Europe’s backbone. All those claims that British and French forces would position themselves on the Dnipro - all of that depended on US support. Without the US, Europe cannot sustain it.

The only strategy is to struggle through until Democrats return to power in Washington. But even that requires time, resources and guarantees that it will actually help.

Trump can pressure Zelenskyy through arms supply and intelligence - the most crucial issues for Ukraine on the front line. Additionally, corruption scandals uncovered by NABU involving people close to Zelenskyy are also a major problem for Kyiv.

Q. Corruption files and a scenario of replacing Zelenskyy. Recently, two trends emerged simultaneously: harsh Western media reports about corruption in Ukraine’s energy sector involving Zelenskyy’s entourage and a peace plan that requires elections within 100 days. Could these “corruption investigations” be a pressure tool to force Zelenskyy to sign an unwanted deal? And how credible are claims that Washington is preparing a “Plan B” to replace him with [Ambassador of Ukraine to the United Kingdom] Valerii Zaluzhnyi or [Secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council] Rustem Umerov?

A. This could absolutely be seen as part of internal pressure. Whether NABU is a fully externally controlled tool is hard to say, but if needed, it will be used. Nothing in politics happens accidentally. Obviously, this is leverage - as is the provision requiring elections within 100 days of signing the plan. Rubio already said all tools of pressure have been used on Russia; now it's Ukraine’s turn. And Ukraine is the easier target - a country fully dependent on the West is easier to pressure.

Q. Does this 28-point plan create a security vacuum in Europe and increase the risk of future Russian aggression against the Baltics or Poland?

A. As long as NATO exists - no. Also, how is Russia supposed to attack Poland? From Belarus? Or does it need to capture western Ukraine first? When a country struggles for years to capture a few villages in Donetsk, it is unrealistic to suggest it can invade Europe. Poland can defend itself; Russia does not have the capacity to swallow Poland. As for the Baltics - Russia would only attack if NATO ceases to exist. If NATO collapses, then yes, the Baltics are in serious danger. Poland, I rule out. The Baltics - not yet, unless NATO disappears.

Q. The precedent for Georgia: The plan effectively recognises occupied territories (Crimea, Donbas) as part of Russia and closes NATO’s door. How would this affect Georgia? Does Ukraine’s “neutralisation” mean the end of Georgia’s NATO prospects and de facto international legitimisation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian territories?

A. Even for Donbas and Crimea, the plan speaks of de facto recognition, not necessarily legal recognition. As for [Georgia’s Russia-occupied territories of] Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia has not annexed them and has not incorporated them constitutionally. I do not think Russia will do this now.

As for Georgia joining NATO - we should not deceive ourselves, we never really had a realistic chance. Now, however, this conversation ends legally. If NATO commits to no further expansion, who is left to join? Just Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine - and that possibility becomes formally eliminated.