Trump’s Peace Proposal for Ukraine Surprises European Allies

Donald Trump’s recent peace proposal for Ukraine has taken European allies by surprise, appearing to favor Russian interests significantly. The plan, initially reported by Axios, suggests a settlement largely aligned with Moscow’s demands regarding territory and governance, while offering unclear security guarantees from the United States.

The proposal outlines that Russia would gain full de facto control over Luhansk and Donetsk, which together account for nearly 15 percent of the territory currently held by Ukraine. Additionally, the plan designates these areas as a demilitarized zone, prohibiting any Russian military presence. In regions such as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the current lines of control would be frozen, though some territory may be returned to Ukraine through negotiations.

In a significant shift, Ukraine may be compelled to reduce its armed forces by as much as half. Furthermore, the proposal would prevent Ukraine from deploying long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russia. It also stipulates that no foreign troops could be stationed in Ukraine, while the US would provide a security guarantee against future aggression from Russia.

Another contentious element of the plan is the requirement for Ukraine to recognize Russian as an official language and to grant formal status to the local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Although the US and other nations would acknowledge Crimea and the Donbas as part of Russia, Ukraine would not be mandated to do the same.

As of now, the White House has not issued an official statement regarding the proposal. The Kremlin has also denied that new initiatives are being pursued between the US and Russia. European capitals were caught off guard by the news of the negotiations, which were facilitated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Kremlin adviser Kirill Dmitriev.

In a statement reported by *Politico*, a White House official indicated that the administration intended to present the deal to Ukraine as a fait accompli, disregarding the perspectives of European allies. “We don’t really care about the Europeans,” the official remarked. “It’s about Ukraine accepting.”

While many specifics of the 28-point plan remain ambiguous, it is clear that this agreement represents a phase in ongoing negotiations rather than a conclusive settlement. Despite the lack of consultation with European leaders during these discussions, there may still be opportunities for them to exert influence.

During a meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska last August, both leaders agreed to pursue a peace deal without first establishing a ceasefire. In the aftermath, Ukraine and its European allies successfully urged Trump to slow the process and insist on an immediate ceasefire prior to negotiations. As tensions mounted, Trump intensified sanctions against Russia and increased military aid to Ukraine, reflecting a growing impatience with the Kremlin.

European leaders have also ramped up pressure on Moscow, devising complex plans to utilize frozen Russian assets as collateral for loans intended for military support to Ukraine. Following the Alaska summit, Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his European allies acknowledged that some Ukrainian territories could remain under de facto Russian control after a peace agreement, although they firmly opposed any formal recognition of Moscow’s territorial claims.

In light of these developments, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has maintained a connection with Trump, has emphasized the importance of preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and democracy. He referenced Finland’s experience after World War II, when it ceded 10 percent of its territory to the Soviet Union in exchange for maintaining its autonomy and democratic governance.

As the situation evolves, Ukraine faces a difficult decision regarding its territorial integrity and sovereignty. The strength and clarity of the US security guarantee will play a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of these negotiations, highlighting the delicate balance between diplomacy and national interests in this ongoing conflict.