The US-Russian peace plan for Ukraine certainly puts an end to a conflict. But, above all, it paves the way for a rewriting of history. No, the Russian military operation was not an “illegal, unprovoked, and unjustified military aggression,” but rather an application of Security Council Resolution 2202, in accordance with international law. If the people of Europe recognize that they were mistaken, or that they were misled, they will change their regimes just as Ukraine will change its own.
The Ukrainian-Russian conflict is drawing to a close: the Russian and American presidents have agreed on a 28-point plan, modeled on the one adopted by the Security Council for the Arab-Israeli conflict [1].
While the guiding principles were approved at the Anchorage summit (Alaska) on August 15 by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin themselves, the details were negotiated by Steve Wikoff and Kirill Dmitriev from October 24 to 26 in Miami. This agreement was only officially revealed to Rustem Umerov, secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, at the beginning of last week, before his flight to Qatar. The unelected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, discovered it in detail on November 20, when Dan Driscoll (Secretary of the Army), and Generals Randy George (Chief of Staff of the Army) and Chris Donahue (Commander of US Forces in Europe and Africa), came to present it to him.
For the past three months, Russian forces have been bombing the “integral nationalist” units (“Banderists” or “neo-Nazis,” according to the Kremlin’s terminology) of the “White Führer,” Andriy Biletsky. As a result, he emerged defeated from the successive battles of Mariupol (May 2022), Bakmut/Artyomovsk (December 2023), and Pokrovsk (November 2025).
On November 11, the State Department gave its approval for the release of “Operation Midas,” a vast investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), conducted with the assistance of 80 American investigators. It has already led to the resignation of two ministers—Herman Halushchenko, Minister of Justice, and Svitlana Grynchuk, Minister of Energy—and the flight of Rustem Umerov (already mentioned) to Qatar. In all likelihood, the resignation of Andriy Yermak, the head of the presidential administration, will follow. At that point, Volodymyr Zelensky will be completely exposed: the key political figures he relied on will be destroyed. He will have no choice but to accept Donald Trump’s plan or flee himself.
Contrary to what one might expect, the unelected president did not seek to modify the terms of the peace plan when he met with the US delegation on November 20, but rather to add an amnesty; not for war crimes, but for acts of corruption.
Already, Ukrainians who remained in the country (a third of the population has already fled Ukraine, half to Russia, half to the EU) are vehemently opposed to the self-proclaimed president. He was elected to fight corruption, and he has fueled it to unprecedented levels. In November, several riots pitted the population against military recruiters. Even the “hardline nationalists” now believe he can no longer help them achieve their apocalyptic goals against Slavs and are urgently planning to overthrow him.
The member states of the European Union, who envisioned and prepared for a protracted war, cannot accept a capitulation that dare not speak its name. Each is now confronted with the brutal end of its dream. Clearly, the fall of the Ukrainian regime will be followed by that of the European leaders who supported it.
Indeed, the time for reckoning has come. The European Union initially provided €1 billion in cash, then its military committee established a clearing house allowing Ukrainians to select weapons from the stocks of EU member states’ armed forces. Finally, the Union made its own resources, such as its satellites, available. Over time, the EU provided ever more: up to €3 billion in July and August.
Let no one believe that this is solely the initiative of Commission officials. On March 1, 2022, the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, held a session with President Zelensky, who spoke via video link. It adopted NATO’s position, which disregards the Kyiv agreements and considers the Russian special operation against “core nationalists,” pursuant to Security Council Resolution 2202, as an “illegal, unprovoked, and unjustified military aggression.” It was the Parliament that adopted a resolution (P9_TA(2022)0052) paving the way for the EU’s full support of the Zelensky regime, which many member states readily endorsed.
When President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Zelensky in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025, some governments consulted with one another. A series of back-and-forths took place between Paris and London, both vying to lead a coalition of the willing. Ultimately, only the British remained. London formed a military alliance with the Baltic states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden) and added Ukraine on November 5. This constitutes a purely British NATO within NATO.
France, although not a member of this alliance with the United Kingdom, is not lagging behind. But it is now more a matter of posturing than action. On November 17, President Emmanuel Macron signed a letter of intent with his unelected counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, stating that, when domestic industry is able, it will build and sell 100 Rafale fighter jets to Ukraine. Then, on November 18, he sent his Chief of the Defence Staff, General Fabien Mandon, to tell the Congress of Mayors of France that the French should prepare to lose their children in an imminent war against Russia.
Volodymyr Zelensky made a panicked phone call to his allies on November 21. Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz and Keir Starmer stressed once again, according to the Élysée Palace, “that all decisions having implications for the interests of Europe and NATO require the joint support and consensus of European partners and NATO allies respectively.”
They all met on November 22 in Johannesburg, South Africa, for a meeting of G20 heads of state and government, with the exception of… Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The final declaration contained only one vague sentence on the subject: “Guided by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in its entirety, we will work for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the occupied Palestinian territories, Ukraine, as well as to end other conflicts and wars around the world.” Such platitudes hardly justify such a meeting. Consequently, the Europeans consulted behind the scenes to develop a counter-proposal.
The European press is simply presenting the Russian-American peace plan as “favorable to Moscow,” which is neither the case nor the point. The plan, as far as we know, stipulates that Crimea and the two Donbas republics (Donetsk and Luhansk) are Russian. But this was already the case BEFORE the war. It also stipulates that the rest of Novorossiya will be allocated along the front line. In other words, almost all of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, but not the port of Odessa, which would have allowed Russia to establish territorial contiguity with Transnistria, a candidate for accession to the Russian Federation.
In addition, the plan requires that the Ukrainian army, currently 800,000 strong, be reduced to 600,000 strong, that it renounce long-range missiles capable of striking Moscow (which it does not currently possess. This was the debate over US Tomahawks and German Taurus missiles), and that it renounce NATO membership, but European fighter jets may be stationed in Poland.
From a Russian perspective, the most important thing lies elsewhere: the denazification of the Kyiv regime. This is a fundamental objective of which NATO members have never been aware. Denazification requires an educational program in each country to educate them about the other’s culture, like the one implemented in France and Germany at the end of World War II.
Moscow is thus achieving what it fought for, but not what it has long hoped for: NATO’s withdrawal to its 1991 borders. This will always be a source of conflict. The European Union must be aware of this. It should not be surprised to see this conflict continue.
On the US side, Washington is committed to lifting sanctions against Russia and to readmitting Moscow to the G7/8.
Certainly, President Donald Trump is on the verge of extricating his country from this quagmire. But this is to force the European Union to face its responsibilities.
The reconstruction of Ukraine, estimated at $200 billion, will be split equally between the EU and Russia. Each country will have to contribute $100 billion. The Russian funds will be drawn from the sums frozen during the conflict. These funds will be controlled by the United States, which will receive half of the revenue from these investments.
Finally, if Ukraine renews its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, the electricity produced by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant will be allocated half to Ukraine and half to Russia.
The hardest part is being ignored: the European Union (and consequently NATO) will have to acknowledge that these events did not constitute an “illegal, unprovoked, and unjustified military aggression,” but rather a legitimate application of Security Council Resolution 2202, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law.
A period of introspection is essential. All have contributed to this war, the number of victims of which remains unknown. High-ranking officials in Brussels acted with hubris, EU member states behaved like herd mentality, and the people of Europe convinced themselves that they embodied peace.
It is this realization that seems most crucial and that will bring about the downfall of the regimes that sought and worked to “bring Russia to its knees.”
[1] “Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine”, Voltaire Network, 20 November 2025.
Source: Voltaire Network
Comments