By Gina Tedesca
US President Donald Trump has once again blown up the scripted narratives of Western foreign-policy elites by unveiling a sweeping 28-point peace plan for Ukraine.
His proposal doesn’t call for endless spending, escalation or for NATO brinkmanship—but for neutrality, security guarantees, territorial arrangements and economic rebuilding.
And here’s the part the media really doesn’t want discussed: Trump’s plan looks strikingly similar to a peace initiative introduced back in 2023 by the AfD in the German Bundestag under foreign policy spokesman Petr Bystron. In other words, the populists had the diplomatic roadmap long before the “serious” people running Europe.
Shared Strategic Premise: Endless War Is a Choice
Trump and the AfD start from the same inconvenient truth—Ukraine will not be “won” on the battlefield. Both proposals reject NATO expansion, call for permanent neutrality, and ban foreign troop deployments inside Ukraine. Both demand international security guarantees, a negotiated ceasefire and a phased military disengagement.
And both reject Washington and Brussels’ childish fantasy that shoveling weapons and cash into a corrupt war zone will magically produce peace.
Converging Approaches to Contested Territories
Even on the most explosive issue—territorial control—both plans take a sober, realistic approach. Trump outlines concrete territorial arrangements.
The AfD plan suggests internationally supervised transitional mandates followed by bilateral negotiations. Different mechanics, same logic: de-escalation, monitoring, and rebuilding instead of mass graves and propaganda slogans. The foreign-policy blob hates it because it acknowledges reality.
Key Differences Highlight Europe’s Failure
The AfD document, written in Europe rather than Washington, is actually the more diplomatic of the two. It doesn’t demand instant recognition of Russian-held territories.
It doesn’t dictate the size of Ukraine’s military or attempt to micromanage internal politics—features in Trump’s draft. Instead, it focuses on negotiations, UN or OSCE mandates and long-term stabilization. But the outcome is the same: stop the dying, stop the spending, stop the geopolitical LARPing.
Bystron’s Devastating Verdict on Berlin
Petr Bystron has been warning for years that Germany chose ideology over peace. His assessment is now impossible to ignore:
“The German government preferred to sink 40 billion euros of German taxpayers’ money into Ukraine rather than join our plan. Meanwhile, Ukrainian politicians wallowed in stacks of cash and showed off golden toilets, while hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians died miserable deaths on the battlefield. All of this could have been avoided.”
That quote will age badly for Berlin—and for Brussels.
The Globalists’ Worst Nightmare: Consensus Outside Their Bubble
What terrifies the Western political class isn’t Trump’s plan or the AfD’s—it’s the overlap. Two anti-establishment movements, continents apart, arrived at the same conclusion: neutrality, de-escalation, security guarantees, reconstruction and no NATO expansion. No think-tank panels. No virtue-signaling. No blank checks.
So how long can Europe pretend its current strategy—war without victory, spending without oversight, posturing without accountability—is the only option?
The answer is obvious: not much longer.
The post US Peace Plan Bears Striking Resemblance to German AfD Proposal — and Nobody in the Media Wants to Talk About It appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.