When it comes to Trump's emerging Ukraine peace deal, Vice President JD Vance and Senate Republican Mitch McConnell are having what you might charitably call a disagreement. Or less charitably, a public spat that's getting increasingly pointed.

A War of Words Over Who Created the Problem

On Monday, Vance took to X to fire back at McConnell's criticism of the Ukraine peace deal. The Kentucky senator had cautioned the Trump administration against "appeasing" Russian President Vladimir Putin in negotiations.

Vance didn't hold back: "This is a ridiculous attack on the president's team, which has worked tirelessly to clean up the mess in Ukraine that Mitch–always eager to write blank checks to Biden's foreign policy–left us," he wrote.

McConnell's concerns center on what he sees as a deal that heavily favors Russia. In a Friday statement, he said: "Putin has spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool. If Administration officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace, then the President ought to find new advisors."

He added bluntly: "Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America's interests."

By late Sunday, McConnell softened slightly, acknowledging on X that Trump is right about "Biden's weakness" emboldening Putin. Still, he continued questioning whether the President is pushing Russia to make "difficult concessions" too.

What's Actually in This Deal?

The peace proposal has dominated conversations in Washington for weeks. Trump has been deeply involved in negotiations, even sending his son-in-law Jared Kushner to join U.S. peace talks with Ukrainian officials.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emerged as another key figure, stating that the U.S.-authored proposal offers a framework based on inputs from both Russia and Ukraine. According to an Axios report from last week, Trump's 28-point proposed deal would recognize Russia's control over Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and the areas it holds in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Ukraine would need to reduce its military size, block NATO troop deployments, and halt any further NATO integration.

If that sounds generous to Moscow, you're not alone in thinking so. Reuters reported Wednesday that the U.S.-backed peace plan was partly based on a Russian "non-paper" submitted to the Trump administration in October, according to three sources. Moscow's document, shared after Trump met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, outlined conditions Russia has long sought—including major territorial concessions that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected.

Ukraine Says It's Reached Agreement on Core Terms

Here's where things get interesting. On Saturday, Trump clarified that his original peace plan was not the "final offer." Then late Tuesday, he posted on Truth Social that the original plan has been "fine-tuned" with inputs from Russia and Ukraine, with "only a few remaining points of disagreement."

Around the same time, Ukraine National Security Secretary Rustem Umerov posted on X: "Our delegations reached a common understanding on the core terms of the agreement discussed in Geneva."

So despite all the criticism about a pro-Russia deal, Ukraine itself appears to be signaling progress. Whether that means Kyiv got meaningful concessions in the "fine-tuning" process or simply decided the revised terms were acceptable remains unclear. What is clear is that after years of war, there's movement toward some kind of resolution—even if plenty of people in Washington think it's the wrong kind of resolution.

Price Action: Crude oil futures are down 0.34%, trading at $57.93 per barrel, when last checked.