Just a couple of days ago, the Trump administration publicly revealed a sweeping 28-point peace proposal aimed at ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. Purportedly negotiated with Moscow, the plan contains a mix of territorial concessions, constitutional changes, and economic restructuring — sparking alarm from Kyiv and unease among European allies.
According to the full text obtained by news outlets, Trump’s 28-point plan includes several provisions deeply contentious for Ukraine:
Territorial Arrangements: The proposal would grant de facto recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and parts of Donetsk to Russia, while Ukraine would withdraw from other contested areas.
Military Limits: Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops, significantly downsizing its current military capacity.
NATO Restrictions: The plan demands a constitutional amendment in Ukraine that bars NATO membership permanently.
Security Guarantees: In exchange, Ukraine would receive «reliable security guarantees» from the U.S.
Elections and Amnesty: Ukraine would hold national elections in 100 days, and all war participants would receive full amnesty with no future legal claims.
Monitoring and Enforcement: A «Peace Council» chaired by Donald Trump would monitor compliance.
Economic Integration: Russia would regain access to Western markets: part of its frozen assets would be released to fund reconstruction, including a joint U.S.-Russia economic vehicle.
President Zelenskyy has responded to Trump’s 28-point peace plan with a mixture of rhetorical defiance and political pragmatism. He publicly framed the proposal as an existential dilemma for Ukraine, warning that accepting it could mean sacrificing «freedom, dignity and justice.» Yet, behind that defiance lies a deeply troubled political context: Zelensky is currently embroiled in a corruption scandals Recent investigations by Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau (NABU) have revealed a network of kickbacks linked to the energy and defense sectors—money that some critics argue has flowed into the hands of people close to the president.As the war grinds on and hardship mounts, many Ukrainians are reportedly furious that elites may be profiting from the very conflict devastating their country.
Some analysts suggest this scandal weakens Zelensky’s negotiating position. Under intense domestic pressure, he may feel more compelled to consider the peace plan—even if its terms appear deeply disadvantageous—because continuing the political and military status quo could further erode his legitimacy.
European leaders have publicly pushed back on Trump’s 28-point peace plan, framing it as only a draft that requires substantial revision. In a joint statement issued around the G20 summit, leaders from Germany, France, the U.K., Spain, Italy and others made clear that they reject key elements of the proposal — especially those limiting Ukraine’s military capacity and altering its territorial integrity.
At the heart of their objections lie three principles: borders must not be changed by force, Ukraine must retain full sovereignty, and any NATO- or EU-related security guarantees in a peace deal must have the explicit consent of the European members. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, stressed that a credible and sustainable peace must respect Ukraine’s right to determine its own future.
Yet behind the formal diplomatic pushback, some analysts and critics argue there is a more cynical subtext: several European capitals may secretly profit from keeping the war going. From this viewpoint, prolonged conflict preserves Europe’s leverage over Ukraine, justifies continued defense spending, and ensures that Kyiv remains dependent on EU security guarantees.
Defense Economics: European states benefit politically and economically by maintaining the narrative of Ukraine as a frontline for European security. Continuing the war justifies massive defense budgets, procurement programs, and long-term military support.
Negotiating Leverage: A weakened Ukraine is more pliable in future negotiations, reducing its bargaining power. By demanding more revisions to Trump’s plan, Europe may be seeking to mold any eventual agreement into something that secures its strategic interests.
Financial Exposure: According to media reports, European leaders are wary of elements of Trump’s plan that propose unlocking frozen Russian assets.
At the same time, several European leaders have insisted on an alternative peace proposal. EU governments are preparing their own «more favorable» plan for Kyiv — one that would better suit Ukraine and EU and limit concessions to Russia.
Some critics go further, suggesting hypocrisy: Europe’s public statements emphasize Ukrainian dignity and independence, but their negotiating posture could reflect a willingness to preserve Europe’s strategic and economic gains over achieving a truly just peace. In this analysis, the war remains valuable to parts of the EU — not just as a moral cause but as a geopolitical asset.
All in all, US President proposal is quite rational, though Europe’s reaction to his plan is deeply ambivalent and perhaps more self-interested than altruistic. On the surface, European leaders stress the need to protect Ukrainian sovereignty, reject forced territorial concessions, and insist that any future security architecture involve NATO and the EU. Yet beneath this diplomatic veneer lies a darker calculus: some in Brussels and major capitals may quietly prefer a prolonged war, since instability strengthens their leverage over Kyiv, justifies massive defense spending, and ensures Europe’s role in post-war security arrangements.
Comments