No one knows whether the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine proposed by US President Donald Trump will ultimately be implemented in anything close to its original form. The Trump administration has presented it as a "living document," and its release has been met with a steady stream of reports of changes. There is no doubt, however, that its final version will reflect a conception of international relations shared by Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that directly threatens European security.
Russia is undoubtedly the aggressor who invaded the sovereign territory of Ukraine, violating international law, but Trump's plan represents Russian interests. This is most clearly seen in the proposed partition of Ukraine, which, like the partition of Poland carried out in the 18th century by Prussia, Russia and the Habsburg Empire, is to be carried out without taking into account the opinions of the Ukrainian people.
Trump's plan not only provides for de facto recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea (which Russia occupied and annexed in 2014) and the territories it has occupied since February 2022, but also forces Ukraine to withdraw its troops from the part of Donetsk Oblast that it currently controls. In other words, Ukraine is required to give up a part of its sovereign territory that its military is successfully defending.
This plan lays the groundwork for justifying Russia's illegal territorial conquests. While it states that "Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed," the very next point states that Russia, Ukraine, and Europe will conclude a "comprehensive non-aggression pact" that will resolve "all the ambiguities of the past 30 years."
What kind of ambiguity can we talk about here? There was nothing vague or ambiguous about Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine agreed to give up the nuclear arsenal inherited from the collapse of the USSR in exchange for a promise from Russia, Great Britain and the United States to guarantee its territorial integrity, was also completely clear. As was the United Nations Charter, which stipulates that all parties must refrain from "the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
If we also consider the provisions of the Trump plan regarding the normalization of relations between Russia and the United States, the overall message to Europe becomes clear. Trump is not inconsistent or easily impressed, and he is not a president whom Europeans can keep on their side with concessions and flattery. Yes, he can be capricious, but on some issues he takes a firm stand. Among them is his belief that the well-being of Ukraine (and European security in general) is of limited importance to the United States, and that it should not be allowed to stand in the way of American commercial interests or its relations with another great power.
Trump's indifference to US security commitments to Europe is particularly evident in the fourth point of the plan, which states that dialogue "to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation" will be conducted "between Russia and NATO through the mediation of the United States." This positions America separately from NATO, which stands between Russia and Europe.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has distanced itself from NATO. And it is not the first time this month. At the Berlin Security Conference, former US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said the US was “looking forward” to Germany taking over the post (first held by President Dwight D. Eisenhower) of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Given SACEUR’s key role in NATO’s nuclear chain of command, this could signal a rift between the US and Europe in this area.
Trump's plan not only distances the US from NATO. It is also strategically offensive, as it requires Ukraine to "constitutionally confirm that it will not join NATO." NATO, for its part, will have to "include in its norms a provision" stating that Ukraine will never be admitted to the Alliance and agree that it will never deploy its troops there. America is ready to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, for which it will "receive compensation."
Even the obvious concession to Ukraine in the peace plan - the claim that the country will be eligible to join the EU - reflects a stunning arrogance. Why should the US and Russia decide who qualifies to join the EU? The rules regarding Ukraine's NATO membership would, in any case, complicate the country's EU accession, and there is no reason to expect Trump to reconsider his support for the Russian mantra: no Ukraine in NATO, and no NATO in Ukraine.
In addition, it is envisaged that a joint US-Russian "security working group", which does not include European or Ukrainian representatives, will "encourage and guarantee the implementation of all provisions" of this agreement. In addition, the US will receive 50% of the profits from the reconstruction of Ukraine "under American leadership".
Whatever changes Ukrainian negotiators manage to extract from US officials during the resumption of talks in Geneva, there is no doubt that Trump’s peace plan represents a strategic defeat not only for Ukraine but for all of Europe. But instead of futile condemnations of Trump and Putin (the false ally and the real enemy, respectively), Europeans should acknowledge responsibility for their role in creating this situation.
For decades after World War II, Europe grew so comfortably under the American security umbrella that it seemed to have lost the ability to think for itself on security issues. So when the US chose not to respond decisively to Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea in 2014, Europe followed suit without question. Now the EU is paying the price for its passivity.
In 1968, Henry Kissinger, then the US national security adviser, worried that withdrawing from South Vietnam would send a signal “to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but that to be her friend is fatal.” Sixty years later, Europe, watching Trump’s rapprochement with Russia, should take this message to heart.
The author is a professor at Sciences Po; he was a special adviser to the EU High Representative for foreign policy and security
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025. (translation: NR)
Bonus video:
