(MENAFN- EIN Presswire) EINPresswire/ -- Bucharest - Political analyst and author Raluca Niță has released a comprehensive assessment of the U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed framework for ending the war in Ukraine, warning that the initiative reflects a deeper transformation of the global geopolitical landscape and exposes strategic vulnerabilities across the United States, Europe, and Ukraine.

Niță argues that the proposal, unveiled between renewed threats of sanctions against Russia and conciliatory remarks toward Kyiv, encapsulates a core paradox of current U.S. foreign policy: a global power attempting to project authority while revealing increasing internal fragility.

Niță emphasizes that the global arena today resembles what she calls a“friends–enemies arena of powers,” where states oscillate between rivalry and instrumental partnership.“The post-1989 liberal order is being reconfigured in real time,” Niță states.“The United States no longer speaks with the coherence of a stable hegemon. Its strategic posture oscillates between confrontation and accommodation, particularly in relation to Russia.”

Even in its early, leaked form, the plan carried a clear pro-Russian tone and implied that Ukraine had shown too little gratitude. For Niță, this language is not accidental-it reflects a broader recalibration of U.S. strategy.

United States: Declining Hegemony and Strategic Ambiguity
Niță highlights the plan's use of deliberately undefined terminology-such as a 'significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack'-as a mechanism to preserve freedom of action rather than commit the U.S. to intervention. She also notes that the reference to“European partners” avoids identifying the EU as a political subject, signaling Washington's perception of Europe as fragmented.

“Trump frames NATO as an external entity rather than an alliance led by the United States,” she observes.“This represents a symbolic repositioning of America's role within the transatlantic system after Trump came into power.”
This logic becomes visible in the internal contradictions of Trump's plan, including the unusually vague clause that“it is expected” Russia will refrain from invading neighboring countries-an imprecise formulation that signals neither obligation nor enforcement. She argues that the document reveals not only diplomatic ambiguity but also a deeper alignment between Kremlin and Washington political architectures, evidenced by parallel trends toward personalized authority and weakened institutional constraints. Niță recalls that tensions between Trump and Putin, notably after the Alaska summit, never disrupted this underlying structural affinity: while Trump's disposition toward Moscow was volatile, Putin's favorability toward Trump remained constant.

Europe: High Principles, Limited Capacity
According to Niță, Europe's political language remains strongly aligned with Ukraine, yet its practical commitments are constrained by industrial limitations and political fragmentation.
“Europe is both committed and insufficient,” she says.“Its credibility as a strategic actor depends on whether it can translate moral support into sustainable defense capability.”
Europe's long-term security architecture, she adds, ultimately depends on Ukraine's survival as a sovereign state-prompting the EU to advance its own counter-proposal.

Russia: Consolidation Without Full Annexation
Niță emphasizes that the plan does not undermine Russia's strategic objectives.
“Moscow never required complete territorial control. It sought an ungovernable and geopolitically inert Ukraine,” she explains.

The plan's territorial provisions-recognizing Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto Russian, and freezing Kherson and Zaporizhzhia along current lines-reflect this logic. The blurring between de jure recognition – recognition is the declaration of existence in terms as a rule- and de facto, she argues, may be intentional and serves to normalize a landscape of ambiguous sovereignty.
President Vladimir Putin's openness to the proposal suggests that it aligns with Russia's long-term strategic preferences.

Global Context: The End of the Post-Cold War Consensus
Niță places the current moment within a broader philosophical shift.
“The assumption that liberal democracy would expand globally has collapsed,” she notes.“Conflicts now unfold on civilizational time scales. Uncertainty has become the only constant.”

Ukraine's Strategic Dilemma
While politically unacceptable for Kyiv, the plan cannot be ignored due to Ukraine's dependence on Western military and financial support.
Niță identifies four avenues through which Ukraine can negotiate from a position of agency:
.Prioritize binding security guarantees over territorial concessions
-securing long-term defense agreements, integration into Western air-defense networks, and joint defense-industrial projects.
.Anchor Europe in a structured, long-term commitment to Ukraine
-expanding EU defense production, establishing predictable multi-year financial support, and accelerating European rearmament.
.Exploit the strategic competition and overlap between the U.S. and Russia
-positioning Ukraine as indispensable to regional stability and framing its security as a prerequisite for any durable settlement.
.Insist on trilateral negotiations
-ensuring that any peace framework involves Ukraine directly, preventing a bilateral U.S.–Russia arrangement that bypasses Kyiv's sovereignty and interests.

She also underscores that Ukraine's accession to NATO remains a clear red line for Russia.
A New Political Alignment
Niță concludes that the plan points to a structural convergence between the American and Russian political systems-both ideologically, but functionally.
“Both systems exhibit stronger personalization of power and weaker institutional constraints,” she argues.“We are entering a post-liberal global order where alliances are fluid, adversaries can cooperate, and former certainties no longer apply.”
Ukraine, she emphasizes, stands at the center of this transformation. Its future will depend on whether Europe can evolve from a moral actor into a fully-fledged geopolitical one.

About the Author
Raluca Niță, author of The Silent Language of Power, is an expert in political nonverbal communication, geopolitics and political philosophy. She has analyzed world leaders' gestures for outlets including the Daily Star and Ukraine National TV. She holds double degrees in Law and European Studies, a Master's in Diplomacy, and an Executive MBA.

Media Contact:
For interviews, commentary, or further analysis from Raluca Niță, Raluca can be contacted by phone at +40 753 506 897 or by email at....

MENAFN24112025003118003196ID1110387705