7:07Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, was featured on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul declared this Sunday that he would suggest Ukraine not approve the proposed peace settlement that President Donald Trump has suggested to conclude their conflict with Russia, unless more “unbreakable” assurances for their safety are incorporated into the terms.
"Absent that, my advice to Ukraine would be to decline this. They cannot endorse a treaty like Budapest and then have Russia invade once more," McCaul communicated to Martha Raddatz, the co-anchor of ABC News’ "This Week."
Discussions aimed at peace are ongoing, with American officials slated to convene with a Ukrainian group this Sunday in Geneva.
The most recent proposition, delivered to Kyiv this past Thursday, was crafted by U.S. special delegate Steve Witkoff with insights from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to statements from the White House. It was, however, accomplished alongside Moscow and carries stipulations that are broadly considered favorable to Russia, instigating unease within both Ukraine and Europe that it could represent a surrender in effect.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
Included among the compromises Ukraine is being compelled to accept in this proposition are: diminishing its military to 600,000 troops, consenting to never become a part of NATO, and requiring Kyiv to cede ground in the east, which encompasses locales not yet under Russian occupation.
McCaul, a key figure and past head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed his conviction that “latitude” exists within Trump’s 28-point blueprint and that his Thursday cutoff for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to decide, or otherwise face losing U.S. assistance to halt Russia’s almost four-year-long conflict, should not present a “take it or leave it” scenario.
"I believe there’s some leeway. I am aware that Rubio mentioned that within the subsequent 72 hours, we will all understand significantly more about whether this proceeds or not," McCaul remarked. "The president has always articulated that he envisions this as a possibility, not a certainty. Therefore, it shouldn’t be perceived as a non-negotiable offer."
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who also participated on "This Week," labeled the strategy as "terrible."
"My assessment is that it’s appalling. It casts Neville Chamberlain’s acquiescence to Hitler prior to World War II in a favorable light by comparison," Warner commented, contending that the strategy is "essentially a compilation of Russian assertions."
"This would constitute utter surrender, which is precisely why I believe you’re witnessing pushback from both sides of Congress… It seems as though this was a plan that was almost completely derived from the Russians," Warner added.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on Nov. 23, 2025.ABC News
Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, voiced his hope that this is simply a fresh starting point.
"To impose this proposal upon them, particularly given Zelenskyy’s emphasis on Ukrainian pride versus relinquishing an ally, I would trust that the president would not stoop to forcing this plan on the Ukrainians and our other partners," Warner stated. "It strikes me that the president is observing this biased plan backfiring, encountering resistance from the Ukrainians, the Europeans, and members of Congress within his own party. My expectation is that he will reconsider and adopt a more balanced stance."
Below are further highlights from McCaul’s discussion:
Regarding the outlook for the Russia-Ukraine peace plan
McCaul: This arrangement seems to have stemmed from a conversation between [Trump’s special envoy Steve] Witkoff and the Russian [Kirill] Dmitriev, who is in charge of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund. It remains unclear to what degree Ukraine or our European collaborators had input. Rubio noted during the call that this document comes from the United States, incorporating contributions from both Ukraine and Russia. I anticipate that about 80% of this agreement will find consensus as they proceed to Geneva. The challenge will lie in the remaining 20%, which involves genuinely complex points to negotiate.
Concerning the deal’s Thanksgiving due date
McCaul: Across all factions, save for the Russians, whom I have yet to converse with, there is a consensus that this is an evolving negotiation. They are, in effect, initiating the process. According to the White House’s description last night, they needed to commence formalizing this so that we could achieve progress. I am of the opinion that it serves Ukraine’s interests to finalize something sooner rather than later, given that Russia’s military industrial complex has now escalated to a point that poses significant challenges for Ukraine.
Presented below are additional highlights from Warner’s discussion:
Regarding Trump’s stated intention to engage with Venezuela’s president
Raddatz: Trump has indicated he will communicate with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Do you consider this to be prudent? And what message would you convey to him?
Warner: I believe that Trump’s philosophy of being open to dialogue with anyone is… I won’t criticize him for that. If there exists a mechanism to oust Maduro. It’s worth remembering that our government, along with 50 other governments, predominantly in Western Europe, does not acknowledge the Maduro government as legitimate. Nevertheless, it doesn’t seem as though there is a coordinated scheme originating from America exclusively, absent the involvement of our allies in South or Central America. This again appears to be the incorrect methodology.
Concerning the potential for the U.S. to engage in conflict with Venezuela
Raddatz: Do you suppose he desires to wage war against Venezuela? Do you believe he intends to —
Warner: I cannot say with certainty. I cannot say. I suspect that he is endeavoring to exert external influence on Maduro, but implementing this via an exclusively American strategy, devoid of any signals, even to the Republicans on the Hill, regarding his intentions, makes me uncertain whether it represents sound foreign policy. When this Venezuelan misadventure is coupled with the abandonment of Ukraine, it does not enhance America’s security, nor does it truly prioritize America’s interests.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
