U.S. and Europe Split Over Future of Ukraine

Today, we will discuss the American peace plan for Ukraine, negotiated bypassing Europe, and compare it with the corresponding European proposal, created in tighter cooperation with Ukraine. We will go through the main differences and see how Donald Trump’s actions may shift the balance established after the Second World War, by giving more weight to Russia's interests compared to Ukraine’s.  

As the war in Ukraine persists into its fourth year, the United States and Europe have proposed different peace plans, reflecting contrasting priorities and strategic visions. The American initiative, led by President Donald Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff, has largely bypassed European allies and Ukraine in direct negotiations with Russia. Contrariwise, European leaders have crafted a counterproposal that puts emphasis on Ukrainian sovereignty and the collective security of Europe, which is very close to Russia and shares a long border with it.

The American peace plan includes an immediate ceasefire and direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, with Ukraine abandoning its pursuit of NATO membership while maintaining the option to join the European Union. Under their proposal, the United States would not provide direct security guarantees, but instead would rely on a coalition of willing states to ensure them. 

Ukraine would regain control over the thin piece of land controlled by Russians north of Kharkiv, which has already largely been reduced to rubble by Russian artillery and aviation. Regarding the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Russia will turn control over to the United States, which would facilitate its work and divide the produced electricity for the use of both Ukraine and Russia. 

In return, the United States would recognize Russian control over Crimea and only currently-controlled parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts, despite Russia reinstating its demands for the Ukrainian army to leave and surrender these regions entirely. The plan also includes lifting sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 and resuming U.S.-Russian economic cooperation in the energy and industrial sectors.

It is important to note that this plan sidelined both Ukraine and European allies in the negotiation process, despite heavily relying on them to enforce and guarantee its terms. In summary, the American proposal favors Russian interests heavily, effectively rewarding aggression by having Ukraine concede 99.83% of seized territories. 

This approach has raised concerns about the viability and fairness of the proposed settlement, but also its long-term sustainability. Such a peace deal would overturn the international status quo after the Second World War, leading to a reality where the strongest countries can easily overwrite borders and decide the fate of smaller nations solely based on military power.

In response, Ukrainian and European officials presented a counterproposal, calling for a full, unconditional ceasefire monitored by the U.S. and third parties, robust security guarantees for Ukraine, short of NATO accession, through extensive continued military aid, among others, and the return of all deported Ukrainian children and detained civilians. 

The proposal rejects any restrictions on Ukraine's military capabilities and insists on no limitations regarding the deployment of friendly foreign forces, the full reconstruction of the country, financial compensation using frozen Russian assets, and implementation of economic cooperation and minerals agreement between Ukraine and the USA. Territorial negotiations would commence only after the ceasefire's implementation, using the current frontline as a starting point. The proposal states that sanctions on Russia may be subject to gradual easing if sustainable peace is achieved. However, they would resume and intensify if Russia violates it. Additionally, the plan advocates for Ukraine's control over key assets like the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and unhindered access to crucial waterways like the Dnipro River and Black Sea trade routes. 

The European approach emphasizes a collaborative framework that includes Ukraine as an equal partner, aligning with the principles of shared security and mutual respect. They aim to provide Ukraine with strong security guarantees and underscore the need for a fair and lasting peace, reflecting a commitment to upholding international norms. While this deal also relies on the US for implementation, it also provides them the economic incentives to maintain it, through the rare-earth minerals deal, for example. 

Overall, the deviation between the American and European peace plans highlights a fundamental difference in approach. The U.S. proposal appears to prioritize pragmatism and a quick resolution, potentially at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty and long-term sustainability. While the European plan seeks a balanced resolution that safeguards Ukraine's territorial integrity, and aligns with broader security interests to achieve a long-lasting peace.