European governments fear being shut out of core decisions on Ukraine’s future while bearing the long-term burden of reconstruction, security guarantees, and managing frozen Russian assets.
As Washington races to sell its latest peace framework as a “breakthrough” in the war between Russia and Ukraine, the reality on the ground looks far less settled. The Trump administration’s 28-point plan, now reportedly cut to 19 points after a storm of criticism, has opened the most serious diplomatic track since the early months of the invasion. But it has also exposed a widening gap between US negotiators, Ukrainian red lines, and European concerns about both the terms of the deal and who gets to define them.
According to leaks and draft texts seen by multiple outlets, the original US plan was built around a hard trade-off: Kyiv would accept major territorial concessions, effectively recognizing Russian control over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk and freezing front lines elsewhere, in exchange for US- backed security guarantees, a reconstruction package funded partly by frozen Russian assets, and a cap on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces. The proposal also barred Ukraine from joining NATO, limited foreign troops on its soil, and hinted at Russia’s gradual reintegration into global economic and political structures, including a path back to the G-8.
After fierce pushback from Kyiv and European capitals, a European counterproposal kept US security guarantees but removed explicit territorial concessions, raised the troop cap from 600,000 to 800,000, and dropped language that would permanently shut Ukraine out of NATO or grant Russia blanket amnesty for war crimes. US officials now speak of a refined 19-point framework with “stronger” guarantees for Ukraine. Still, the core tension remains: Washington is trying to engineer a ceasefire and long-term settlement while Russia continues offensive operations and publicly signals no intention of abandoning its maximalist aims. (Read More)
