'Peace for Profit': Trump Allies Plot $2 Trillion Windfall From Ukraine Deal Leak

At the centre of President Trump's controversial plan to end the Russia‑Ukraine war is not peace but profit. A detailed Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have been negotiating with Russian officials to secure lucrative opportunities for US businesses—and Trump's close associates—once the conflict comes to an end.

The report outlines how the discussions are focused on revitalising Russia's $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) economy through joint ventures with American firms. Central to the talks is $300 billion (£240 billion) in frozen Russian central bank assets, which Moscow hopes to channel into US‑led investment projects and reconstruction efforts in Ukraine.

Profit Over Peace

Witkoff, a property developer and Trump confidant, told the Journal: 'Russia has so many vast resources, vast expanses of land... If we do all that, and everybody's prospering and they're all a part of it, and there's upside for everybody, that's going to naturally be a bulwark against future conflicts there. Because everybody's thriving.'

His comments highlight the emphasis on profit as a stabilising force. Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, has reportedly proposed ventures ranging from exploiting Arctic mineral reserves to partnering with SpaceX on a joint mission to Mars.

Money from such projects would flow to Trump's allies and donors. Gentry Beach, a college friend of Donald Trump Jr and the founder of America First Global, is said to be in talks to acquire a stake in a Russian Arctic gas project if sanctions are lifted. Trump megadonor Stephen P Lynch has been working with Trump Jr to purchase the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a critical energy link to Europe.

European Resistance

Europe has strongly opposed Trump's 28‑point peace plan, drafted by Witkoff and based on a Russian proposal. The plan would see Ukraine concede territory and reduce its military capacity, effectively undermining its sovereignty. European leaders responded with their own counter‑proposal, which makes territorial concessions a post‑ceasefire issue and raises Ukraine's military cap to ensure it can defend itself.

The plan has also faced criticism in the United States, including from within the Republican Party. Detractors argue that the framework is overly generous to Russia and risks fracturing U.S. alliances in Europe.

Ukraine's Position

For Ukraine, the benefits of Trump's plan remain uncertain. Former special envoy Lt Gen Keith Kellogg resigned after being 'frozen' out of negotiations, while Trump refused Kyiv's request for Tomahawk missiles in October. Witkoff suggested instead that Ukraine ask for a ten‑year tariff exemption to 'supercharge' its economy.

The White House defended the talks, with spokesperson Anna Kelly telling the Journal: 'The Trump administration has gathered input from both the Ukrainians and Russians to formulate a peace deal that can stop the killing and bring this war to a close... the agreement will continue to be fine‑tuned following conversations with officials from both sides.'

The Bigger Picture

The leak underscores how business interests are shaping the future of the Russia‑Ukraine conflict. By placing profit at the centre of peace negotiations, Trump's allies have raised questions about whether the deal prioritises stability or financial gain.

Critics argue that the phrase 'peace for profit' captures the essence of the controversy: a framework that risks undermining Ukraine's sovereignty while enriching Trump's inner circle. The involvement of megadonors and close associates in discussions about Arctic gas projects, pipelines and even space ventures has fuelled suspicion that the plan is less about ending bloodshed and more about securing lucrative contracts.

For Ukraine, the implications are particularly stark. Concessions on territory and military capacity could weaken its ability to defend itself, while the promised economic benefits remain vague. European leaders have already pushed back, warning that the plan tilts heavily in Russia's favour and could fracture Western alliances.

As negotiations continue, the balance between diplomacy and profiteering remains at the heart of the debate. The controversy highlights a broader question about modern geopolitics: whether peace deals are being shaped by humanitarian concerns or by the pursuit of wealth and influence.