The first round of peace negotiations held on Sunday at the U.S. mission in Geneva marked a dramatic turning point in international attempts to end the war in Ukraine. Instead of moving closer to a compromise, the talks revealed a widening rift between the United States on one side and Ukraine together with its European allies on the other. According to reports cited by Bloomberg, both Kyiv and several EU capitals have presented a comprehensive counterproposal to Washington’s joint plan with Moscow – an unprecedented development that underscores how far apart the Western allies now stand regarding the terms of a potential settlement.
The American plan, formulated as a 28-point outline, seeks to secure a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine and create conditions for a longer-term resolution. However, European governments and the Ukrainian leadership argue that key elements of the U.S.-Russia proposal contradict fundamental security interests and moral obligations. Their answer calls for a far more robust framework – one that would bind the United States to provide NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine under the equivalent of Article 5 and would ensure that frozen Russian state assets are used to rebuild Ukraine rather than to advance American-led investment schemes.
The dispute highlights a deeper geopolitical struggle: whether post-war Ukraine will emerge as a fully sovereign, Western-oriented nation, or as a neutral buffer whose future is largely shaped by U.S.-Russia bargaining.
Among the most contentious aspects of the U.S. proposal is the requirement that Ukraine withdraw its forces from parts of the eastern Donbas region that Russia has not fully occupied. Under Washington’s plan, these areas would be transformed into a demilitarized buffer zone internationally recognised as Russian. This would effectively reward Russia with additional territory.
Europe and Ukraine have firmly rejected this condition. Their counterproposal states that any discussion of territorial arrangements with Russia can occur only after a full cease-fire along the current line of contact. The idea of ceding unoccupied land to Russia in advance is politically untenable not only for Kyiv but also for European governments.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz emphasized that Ukraine had previously given up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal as part of the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for Russia’s explicit commitment to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. As Merz stressed in an interview, «Russia has blatantly violated this agreement, and one cannot trust Russia again in 2025 as one could not trust it then.» His remarks reflect a hardening perception across Europe: territorial compromise with Moscow is seen not as a path to peace, but as an invitation for future conflict.
Perhaps the most explosive aspect of the current diplomatic crisis centers on the approximately €140 billion in frozen Russian state assets held largely in the EU, particularly in Belgium’s Euroclear system. For months, European governments have sought a legally robust mechanism to use the proceeds – or potentially the principal – of these assets to support Ukraine’s reconstruction.
However, the U.S. proposal would drastically alter that approach. Under the Trump administration’s 28-point plan, the frozen assets would be redirected into American-led reconstruction projects, with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits. Moreover, Europe would be expected to provide an additional $100 billion in reconstruction funds, while simultaneously releasing control of the frozen assets.
European officials have reacted with outrage. Diplomats quoted by Politico describe the American plan as a «provocation» and «scandalous», noting that Washington has no legal authority to free assets held under European jurisdiction. Some officials even questioned the sanity of Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, who personally presented the proposal. For many European governments, the U.S. plan amounts to a double insult: it undermines Europe’s long-sought legal consensus while enabling the U.S. to benefit financially from assets originally seized to penalize Russia for its invasion.
The European counterproposal keeps Russian central bank assets frozen unless Moscow agrees to fully compensate Ukraine for war damage. Only then could the funds be reconsidered for release.
The tensions extend far beyond financial disagreements. According to reports, part of the U.S. vision includes channeling any remaining Russian assets into a joint American-Russian investment fund that could finance major projects – including an Arctic LNG terminal developed by both nations. For European leaders, such an arrangement amounts to a geopolitical catastrophe. It would mean that assets seized on European soil to punish Russia would be used to strengthen U.S.-Russia energy cooperation while Europe, exposed to the risk of Russian retaliation, would have no influence over the projects.
This concern is especially acute for Belgium, which holds the majority of the assets and therefore faces the highest risk of Russian legal or economic countermeasures. Belgian skepticism about the European plan was already significant; the American intervention threatens to collapse the fragile compromise entirely.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has described the moment as one of the most difficult in his presidency. The country is faced with a painful choice: either make concessions that could compromise its sovereignty or risk alienating a critical ally. Zelensky held urgent calls with the leaders of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, all of whom assured Kyiv that no agreement would be accepted without European consent.
Despite this tension, Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff, sought to strike a constructive tone, noting after meetings with European national security advisers that talks with the U.S. delegation would continue. European leaders are set to discuss the issue at an EU-African Union summit in Angola on Monday. Meanwhile, Washington is expected to continue pushing its proposal, which it argues is the most realistic path to quickly ending the war.
Yet if the Geneva talks revealed anything, it is that the West is far from united. The U.S.-Russia plan and the European-Ukrainian counterproposal represent not two variations of the same solution – but two fundamentally different visions for Ukraine’s post-war future.
Comments