Different Visions: Where The US And Europe Part Ways On Ukraine Peace

Summary

European nations are drafting a counterproposal to a US peace plan for Ukraine, aiming to reduce concessions that appear to have been made to Russia.
Key differences between the proposals include territorial recognition, NATO membership, military size, and security guarantees.
In contrast with the US framework, the European plan removes an amnesty for war actions and emphasizes addressing victims' suffering.

After a controversial US draft plan for an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine emerged abruptly last week, European nations scrambled to come up with a counterproposal that is easier on Kyiv and makes fewer concessions to Moscow.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent a team of negotiators to Geneva for weekend talks that the White House and Zelenskyy’s office said led to an "updated and refined" framework that would deliver a just peace.

They said they would “continue intensive work on joint proposals in the coming days” and “remain in close contact with their European partners as the process advances.”

Details of the adjusted US proposal were not immediately available. But from territorial and financial issues to the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and a sweeping amnesty, the initial US draft as leaked to media outlets and the European counterproposal, spearheaded by Britain, France, and Germany and reported by Reuters, contain crucial differences. Here they are.

Territorial Tension

Analysts say that seizing territory is not Moscow’s main goal in the war: Russian President Vladimir Putin is bent on subjugating Ukraine. But with Russia occupying nearly one-fifth of Ukraine, control over territory is in fact one of the most critical matters for both Kyiv and the Kremlin in any potential peace deal.

It’s also one of the main contrasts between the initial US draft and the European counterproposal.
Under the US draft, the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea regions would be “recognized as de facto Russian,” and Ukraine would have to withdraw its forces from the portion of the Donetsk region that they still hold -- a massive concession that would essentially hand Russia land it has failed to take in years of grueling fighting.

At the same time, the draft also says that this portion of the region would be a “neutral demilitarized buffer zone” that would be “internationally recognized” as belonging to Russia but that Russian forces would also be barred from entering – an arrangement unlikely to please either side.

Kherson and Zaporizhzhya would be “frozen along the line of contact,” with Russia receiving “de facto recognition” of the parts of these regions it holds.

That would solidify Moscow’s control of a “land corridor” leading from the Russian border and along the Azov Sea coast to Crimea, the peninsula that juts into the Black Sea from Ukraine’s mainland. Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014.

The much shorter section on territories in the European draft says nothing about recognition of any land as Russian or about a Ukrainian withdrawal in Donetsk.

“Negotiations on territorial swaps will start from the Line of Contact,” it states – echoing calls by the Kyiv and the West for a cease-fire under which any change in territorial control on either side of the front line would be the subject of further negotiation.

Russia has rejected these calls since US President Donald Trump made the proposal last spring. Putin also has made clear he wants full Russian control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

"The key question, I am absolutely certain, is still related to territory,” Kirill Martynov, editor-in-chief of the exiled Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta Europe, told Current Time.

“I am confident that the Russian side will insist on being handed the remaining free areas of the Donetsk region. I am sure that this demand is practically impossible and unacceptable for Ukraine.”

NATO…

The US draft would require Ukraine to “enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO” and the alliance to codify a pledge that Ukraine will never be admitted. It also says it is “expected…that NATO will not expand further” at all, meaning that it would never admit any new member.

Putin has cited potential Ukrainian membership as one of the reasons for his decision to launch the full-scale invasion in February 2022, and a bar on Ukraine ever joining was among the demands Russia made in letters to the US and NATO in December 2021, as its forces gathered at the border ahead of the onslaught.

NATO declared in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually join, and Ukraine’s constitution has committed the country to seeking entry since 2019.

But as Western officials have repeatedly tried to tell Russia, membership was unlikely anytime soon because there has been little appetite within the alliance itself for bringing in Ukraine.

The European counterproposal reflects that reality, saying that “Ukraine joining NATO depends on consensus of NATO members, which does not exist.”

That would deprive Russia of a veto on the issue and preserve Kyiv’s right to choose its partners – but it’s unlikely to satisfy Moscow, which wants a binding bar on membership for Ukraine.

…And Its Forces

The US draft says that “NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine,” full stop.

The European proposal says that “NATO agrees not to permanently station troops under its command in Ukraine in peacetime,” wording that might avoid ruling out a potential plan by the largely European "Coalition of the Willing" to send forces to back up Ukrainian troops.

Military Size Matters

The drafts also differ when it comes to another issue of crucial importance to Ukraine: The size of its army. In previous negotiations, Russia has sought to limit Ukraine’s military to numbers as low as 85,000 or even 50,000 personnel, a token force which Kyiv and its backers have said would leave Ukraine deeply vulnerable to further Russian attacks.

The US draft would cap the Ukrainian Armed Forces as 600,000 personnel, while the European counterproposal would raise that to 800,000 “in peacetime,” meaning that it could be higher if Russia were to attack again.

Either way, Martynov said, “There will certainly be a lot of pressure from Moscow regarding this.”

The Ukrainian military had about 250,000 personnel before the war and has 800,000-900,000 now, according to various estimates.

Security Guarantees

Ukraine has been adamant that it cannot agree to peace without strong Western security guarantees, particularly if NATO membership is off the table.

The draft US framework says that Ukraine “will receive reliable security guarantees” and mentions a “US guarantee” but provides few details. The European counterproposal replaces “reliable” with “robust” and calls for a US guarantee that “mirrors Article 5,” under which an attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all.

Additionally, the European draft seeks to ensure that Ukraine and Europe are not sidelined when it comes to matters of security and compliance with the peace deal, if it comes to pass.

While the US draft says that a “joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement,” the European proposal calls for a “joint Security taskforce…with the participation of [the] US, Ukraine, Russia, and the Europeans.”

Follow The Money

The drafts also differ on the divisive issue of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets. The US framework says that “$100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine,” with the US receiving 50 percent of the “profits from this venture” and Europe adding $100 billion “to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction.”

The European proposal is less detailed and less focused on the US, saying that “Ukraine will be fully reconstructed and compensated financially, including through Russian sovereign assets that will remain frozen until Russia compensates damage to Ukraine.”

Election Timing

'The US draft says Ukraine will hold elections “in 100 days,” while the European plan says they will be held “as soon as possible after the signing of the peace agreement.”

The second version gives Kyiv more leeway on a sensitive issue. Putin clearly wants Zelenskyy out of power and has repeatedly claimed that Zelenskyy is illegitimate because a presidential election was not held in 2024, when his five-year term – in peacetime – would have expired.

This assertion ignores the fact that Ukraine’s constitution bars it from holding elections under martial law, which has been in place since the start of the full-scale invasion. Zelenskyy has voiced readiness for Ukraine to conduct elections once the war is over and martial law is lifted.

‘Nazi Ideology’

Critics of the initial US framework say it echoes some of Russia’s other narratives, such as the false assertion that Ukraine is run by or dominated by “nazis;” one of Russia’s stated goals in the invasion is the “denazification” of Ukraine.

As reported by multiple media outlets, the US draft states, “All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited,” while the European counterproposal makes no mention of “Nazi ideology.”

Both drafts call for Ukraine to “adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities,” but the US draft also says both countries “will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.”

That European proposal omits that wording, which hunts at Russian claims of discrimination that Kyiv says are overblown.

‘Address The Suffering’ Or Amnesty All?

Along with territorial control, one of the biggest gaps between the US draft framework and the European counterproposal is the issue of responsibility and justice.

“All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future,” reads point 26 of the US draft. In the European document, point 26 makes no mention of an amnesty, saying only: “Provision will be made to address the suffering of victims of the conflict.”

The wording is vague and gives no indication of how the incalculable suffering wreaked on Ukrainians by Russia might be addressed. But as alleged atrocities mount and Ukraine gathers evidence that could be used in putative future war crimes trials, it’s a gap that could be almost impossible to bridge.

In 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin, alleging he is responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.