Virginia Democrat Sen. Mark Warner spoke out against President Trump’s latest proposal to end the war in Ukraine during an interview with Shannon Bream on “FOX News Sunday.”

SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Okay, things are very fluid this morning, but we know our top officials are in Geneva talking with Ukraine’s top officials. European officials involved in these conversations as well. The wires just now reporting that President Zelenskyy is saying his understanding is that these proposals will include things that are critical to Ukraine and to its own infrastructure as a country. What do you make of where we are? And what do you hope to see come out of these conversations? SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): This initial plan would be a total capitulation by Ukraine. I think it would go down, frankly, as a historically bad deal, rivaling Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler before World War II. The idea that the Ukrainians would be forced to give up the balance of the Donbas, cut back on their military forces, you know, frankly, never be able to join NATO. And my fear is that you’re going to hear not only bipartisan pushback, but the whole idea that this was drafted without Ukrainian input. You’ve got the Europeans pushing back as well. And my fear is the person who’s watching this as close as Vladimir Putin is President Xi in China because if we throw in the towel on Ukraine, I think that gives frankly more fuel to the fire in terms of Xi taking on Taiwan. I think this is a bad deal all the way around. BREAM: So, the State Department is saying that yes, the U.S. put together this proposal, but that it had both Russian and Ukrainian input and now, these talks continue today. We know the vice president had a long phone call with President Zelenskyy. Now, Secretary Rubio, Steve Witkoff are there. And you heard the president say this wasn’t his final offer. So, it sounds like this is maybe an opening negotiation. WARNER: Isn’t this again this kind of chaotic approach where it doesn’t seem like one group knows what the other group is doing? Clearly, this plan was at least initially laid out as simply Russian input and no Ukrainian input. Now they’re saying there has been Ukrainian input. Now the president is changing his mind again about whether this is a final offer or not. End of the day, we all want to see peace, but we don’t want to see a peace that rewards Vladimir Putin. BREAM: Are you confident though with these ongoing discussions that there is going to be enough Ukrainian input that gives them a voice at the table? It sounds like that’s where we are right now. WARNER: Well, I think that is to be seen. Clearly, the plan that was laid out, the 28 points, virtually, every bipartisan expert on Russia pushed back. Ukrainians pushed back. The Europeans pushed back. That was a bad deal. I’m not sure how that strengthens the president’s hands if he’s going to try to be — reach any kind of fair approach with Putin. And Putin has, I feel, has played the president time and again and I fear we’re going down that path one more time. BREAM: Okay. So according to the reports what we know about these 28 points, although we’re told this is in negotiations still at this point, there are some kinds of security guarantees if Ukraine is attacked that there are a number of countries, including the U.S., that will have some defense for them but not a lot of detail there. How do you think your constituents are going to feel about the U.S. committing to something that may involve our troops and our assets there in that region? WARNER: Remember, Shannon, the last time we voted for additional Ukrainian aid, 80 percent of the Congress, Democrats, Republicans, voted for it. I think my constituents and Americans writ large don’t want to see us giving in to Putin. My fear is this plan, which would require Ukraine to give up additional territory that it hasn’t ceded so far after four years of fighting, that would be a tough pill to swallow. And taking your military down from roughly 800,000 to 600,000 with no real firm guarantee, I’m not sure that’s a deal that Zelenskyy could even survive within his own government. BREAM: Do you think we should guarantee that U.S. troops would potentially be on the ground there? WARNER: I think troops on the ground there would be problematic. Putting major guarantees including the possibility of joining NATO, which would be then our alliance troops close posed by, I think that would be a good outcome. But obviously, Putin would fight — fight back against that very toughly. BREAM: Okay, so let’s talk about sanctions. There’s been this bill languishing in the Senate. More than 80 senators. We always talk about you guys don’t agree on a whole lot. So, to get more than 80 of you over there agreed on something is progress. It seems like there’s a signal now from the White House that that can proceed. It seems that now that there’s a little bit of disagreement on where this should start, the House or the Senate. Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Thune had to say: SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I think what is more likely to happen is the House originates that. It’s a revenue measure, and so, it has to — it’s — you know, revenue measures originate in the House. If we had one available to us in the Senate, we could do it here. BREAM: There is something there in the Senate, but what about this argument that it may be a revenue issue? Any — any outlook on how this bill may move? WARNER: Well, again, this bill — this bill would put extraordinarily tough tariffs on all countries that are buying oil from Russia. That, again, would include China. That would include, obviously, India, where the president’s already doubled the tariffs, which I’m not sure long-term makes sense in terms of our ability to peel India away from Russia. This was a very, very tough bill. But I don’t have — you know, since the Democrats don’t drive the House, the Senate, or the presidency, where this legislation starts will be up to the majority leader and the speaker. BREAM: But it’s got a veto-proof majority, at least on the Senate side, if it should come back to your desk. But it seems like the president signaled, I mean, he levied other sanctions a couple of weeks ago. So, it seems like he understands that there has to be somewhat of a heavy hand with Russia at this point. WARNER: Well, again, if the president — I’ve seen very little consistency from the president about Russia. It seems like he has been more willing to be flattered or by Vladimir Putin than any other world leader. Whether he would be willing to actually allow this bill to advance, we — this bill’s been out there for I believe almost a year. I think everybody’s been waiting for whether the president’s saying yes. So, I hope we can get it through, and it ought to be done quickly if the president’s willing to sign on.

RealClearPolitics Videos