A leaked 28-point peace proposal drafted in November between Russia and the US has resurfaced some hope for an end to the Ukraine war for many actors, nearly none of whom are European. This alleged plan covers many areas. For one, it would force the recognition of Russian-held territories and cap the Ukrainian military. Furthermore, it aims to forgo NATO membership in exchange for US security and reconstruction aid (1). When European leaders learned about the initiative, it sparked dismay in Brussels and further friction in transatlantic diplomacy (2). It has also revealed widening strategic differences between the US and the EU: the former seeking a ceasefire at any cost, the latter insisting that no peace should come at the price of sovereignty. As negotiations remain unsettled, Europe’s security and the very shape of the continent depend much on decisions being made outside the Union.
Since February 2022, when the Russia-Ukraine war began, the prospect of peace has remained distant (3). The leading actors involved in the peace efforts, the EU and the US, have failed to engender even a temporary ceasefire between the two states. In the latest developments, a controversial new peace deal was put together in late November, leaving the EU out of the picture once again. Made in secret between the US and Russia, this new peace initiative outlined a bullet-point plan, promising to bring sweeping changes to Ukraine’s current territorial status, military readiness, and future security. Notably, no European foreign minister has affirmed being consulted, not even in Ukraine (4). This move frustrated EU leaders and triggered immediate vocal pushback.
The threat of Russian influence in the EU is rapidly increasing. Without a voice in the negotiations for its own region’s future, the EU’s credibility and sovereignty are actively undermined by the manoeuvrings of two external powers—one adversarial and the other increasingly unilateral. The actions of the US and Russia only cement the growing subordination of regional politics to increasingly autocratic elites.
Inside the 28-Point Plan
The list encompasses a wide range of topics, including territorial, military, and security measures. For instance, point 21 calls for the formal recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as Russian and enforced Ukrainian withdrawal (1). This would legalize Ukraine’s territorial loss and thus admit defeat. The point that follows directly describes the conflicting states as legally barred from changing their borders in the future, freezing the Russian gains permanently. Militarily, point 6 states, "The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel" (1). A deduction of 280,000 from last January, which would further infringe upon the victim state’s sovereignty (5). In exchange, the plan outlines the receipt of US-backed security guarantees and reconstruction funds (1). These terms require significant concessions from Kyiv and aim for a long-term settlement rather than a temporary ceasefire. Though given the nature of the list’s substance and its non-inclusive formulation, a settlement is unrealistic.
European and Ukrainian Response
The EU did not learn about this U.S.–Russia peace plan through diplomatic channels. Instead, media leaks exposing draft terms revealed the extent of negotiations already underway (6). For some analysts, Europe’s strong solidarity with Ukraine may have been viewed as a barrier to securing rapid concessions (2). This isolation triggered immediate backlash from Brussels, citing not only its role in peace efforts but also its extensive financial, humanitarian, and military support since the conflict began (7). The question remains: why are decisions about Europe increasingly made without the EU at the negotiating table?
EU Member States quickly demanded representation, with High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas saying, “For any plan to work, it needs Europeans and Ukrainians on board” (8). Before and after the meeting of EU foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, where Russia's war of aggression dominated the agenda, Western actors described their cautious yet unified view on playing a role in Ukrainian sovereignty. Overall, both Kyiv and Brussels continue to stipulate that any attempt at a peace settlement without their involvement would be unstable and strategically risky.
The Path Forward
Different priorities remain clear during this new period and are ultimately responsible for much of the instability and risk. Whilst under the umbrella of the same goal—ending the war—tensions and frustration have only increased, as contrasting approaches are taken. Whilst Washington appears focused on securing a swift end to the conflict, Brussels and Kyiv argue that lasting peace cannot come at the cost of their own security interests (9).
The future of negotiations remains unclear. The positions of Moscow and Washington limit broader EU participation. Re-entering peace talks is proposed as crucial to achieving long-lasting, positive peace for the region. In any case, the resolution of the contestation will have ripple effects across the transatlantic region, potentially redefining the Ukraine war and altering power dynamics worldwide. The opportunity to renegotiate the current 28-point plan is feasible due to potential diplomatic fractures, deteriorating economic relations, and weakened socio-economic ties.