TRUMP´S PEACE PROPOSAL for Ukraine - a direct translation from Russian?

VERY INTERESTING...

A British expert on translations has analysed the Trump peace plan with the help of Chat GP to see if it looked like a translation from another language and if so from what language. This is her report:

Below is a linguistic/logistic analysis of the text, focusing on (1) whether it appears translated and (2) the most likely source language if so.

⸻

1. Overall Impression

The document is comprehensible, coherent, and grammatically correct in English, but several features suggest that it is very likely translated rather than originally drafted in English.

This is visible in:

 • Unusual phrasing not typical of native policy or diplomatic English

 • Repetitive structures associated with Slavic-language legal texts

 • Calques (literal translations of idioms)

 • Inconsistent use of terms (e.g., “non-aggression” vs. “nonaggression”, “frozen along the line of contact”)

 • Slightly unnatural sequencing of items in several clauses

These features collectively indicate that the English text is not native, even though its grammar is largely correct.

From a logistics and policy-document perspective, it also mirrors the structure and tone commonly seen in Russian, Ukrainian or other post-Soviet diplomatic memoranda, especially those translated into English for international circulation.

--------------------------

2. Linguistic Indicators of Translation

a. Direct calques

Phrases such as:

 • “All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.”

→ This is a literal structure typical in Russian (“все спорные вопросы… будут считаться урегулированными”).

 • “frozen along the line of contact”

→ Mirrors Russian “заморожены по линии соприкосновения”.

 • “undertake not to change these arrangements by force”

→ Typical structure in Russian or Ukrainian legal language (“обязуются не изменять… силой”).

 • “All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.”

→ A standard phrasing in Russian political discourse.

b. Odd word choices

 • “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.”

→ Native English diplomatic writing would be more specific (“EU member-state aircraft”, “NATO aircraft”, “allied aircraft”), not “European fighter jets.”

 • “Powerful global package”

→ Sounds like a literal translation (“мощный глобальный пакет”).

 • “Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast that they currently control.”

A native document would normally avoid mixing “oblast” with English like this; more typical would be “Donetsk region,” unless the document is translated.

c. Repetitive, rigid structure

The enumerated clauses resemble the style of post-Soviet bureaucratic agreements, which tend to:

 • Use parallel structures

 • Over-define and over-describe

 • Include moral/ideological clauses (e.g., tolerance, anti-Nazi provisions)

This differs from the style of US- or EU-drafted agreements.

----------------------

3. Logistic/Structural Markers of a Post-Soviet Origin

From a logistics/diplomacy perspective:

 • The structure is highly prescriptive, detailing domestic law changes—common in Russian or Ukrainian proposals, uncommon in Western documents.

 • The territorial section (21) is expressed in a way typical of Russian diplomatic framing, including:

 • “recognised as de facto Russian”

 • “frozen along the line of contact”

 • creating a ‘neutral demilitarised buffer zone’ described in Russian terms.

 • Clauses about “Nazi ideology”, religious tolerance, and rights of Russian-speaking minorities echo Russian geopolitical narratives, including language frequently seen in Russian foreign-policy texts.

Even if not written by a Russian entity, the language strongly resembles translations from Russian.

--------------------

4. Likely Original Language

Most likely: Russian

Why Russian rather than Ukrainian?

 • Phraseology matches Russian diplomatic and political language extremely closely.

 • Specific ideological language (“Nazi ideology”, “linguistic minorities”, “religious tolerance”) aligns more with Russian state discourse.

 • Some sentence constructions correspond more naturally to Russian syntax than Ukrainian.

 • References to Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk in this framing also match Russian narratives.

Possible but less likely: Ukrainian

 • Ukrainian diplomatic English often has slightly different lexical patterns.

 • Ukrainian official texts rarely use certain ideological formulations that are present here.

 • Ukrainian translations into English tend to maintain more EU-style terminology.

Overall probability:

 • Russian original: ~80–90%

 • Ukrainian original: ~10–15%

 • Other Slavic languages: <5%

----------------

5. Conclusion

Yes — the document almost certainly has been translated.

Based on linguistic, syntactic, and logistical indicators, the most likely original language is Russian. The structure, rhetorical style, and specific calques are strongly consistent with Russian diplomatic or policy drafting translated into English.

If you’d like, I can also provide:

 • A version edited into natural native-English diplomatic style

 • A detailed breakdown of specific sentences and their likely originals in Russian

 • A logistic assessment of the feasibility of the proposals themselves."

As a translator from Russian, I find it pretty convincing.

(She does not want to have her name published)