(MENAFN- Asia Times) A flurry of recent diplomatic activity has seen two competing peace plans for Ukraine emerge.

The first, widely touted as a US plan, was apparently hashed out between Kremlin insider Kirill Dmitriev and Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's Russia point-man.

The second, hurriedly drafted by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, is based on the 28 points in the US plan, but with key modifications and deletions.

Following the release of the US plan, Trump accused Ukraine of showing“zero gratitude” for US assistance in the war effort, and demanded Kyiv accept the terms by Thanksgiving in the United States – November 27 – or face being cut off from US intelligence sharing and military aid.

Unlike the US plan, the European counter-proposal places the blame for the war squarely at Russia's feet. It proposes freezing Russian assets until reparations are made by Moscow. It also seeks to freeze the conflict in place – leaving the question of which party retains which part of Ukraine contingent on subsequent negotiations.

Speaking about the peace proposals, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made it clear the European Union was committed to several key positions:

• Ukraine's borders cannot be altered by force.
• There cannot be limitations on Ukraine's armed forces that would leave it vulnerable.
• The EU needs to have a seat at the table in any agreement.

Comparing the two plans, it is clear Russia and Europe remain as far apart as ever on Ukraine's future. That much is unsurprising.

What should be more shocking to Western observers is just how much the US plan echoed Russian demands that have remained largely unaltered since President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

Lacking logic and specifics

Put simply, the US plan would have had as much credibility if it had been written in crayon.

For starters, it has wording that appears to make more sense in Russian than English (or perhaps AI-translated English).

Latest stories

Trump's Ukraine plan: Realism mercifully returns to Washington

Trump's Xi and Takaichi calls ring market alarm bells

Why Goldman Sachs is so optimistic about China

And it seems more focused on bringing about a new era of friendly Russia-US economic cooperation than on making a serious attempt to resolve Europe's biggest land war since the Second World War.

Typical of Trumpian robber-baron foreign policy, the document foresees large cash grabs for the US, amounting to little more than attempts at extortion.

In return, Ukraine is offered a murky NATO-style security guarantee that could be reneged upon under flimsy pretexts.

The plan also demanded:

• large territorial concessions from Kyiv,
• a limited army,
• a pledge enshrined in Ukraine's constitution that it will never join NATO, and
• a promise to hold elections in 100 days.

And while it expects Ukraine to strategically emasculate itself, the document makes only vague suggestions about what Russia is“expected” to do, with no means of enforcement.

No multinational force is put forward to monitor the peace. And Ukraine would be required to give up key defensive positions by ceding the territory it still controls in the Donbas region to Russia. That would leave the center of the country defenseless against future Russian attacks.

Accepting those terms, as originally written, would be politically suicidal for Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky. This was obvious in his somber message that the plan forced Ukraine to choose between its dignity and continued US support.

A point-by-point breakdown

A closer look at just a selection of its key points illustrates just how bizarre the plan is.

• Point 4 calls for“dialogue” between Russia and NATO, mediated by the US. That's odd, since the US is a member of NATO.
• Point 7 requires NATO to include a provision in its statutes that Ukraine will not be admitted. But a main principle of NATO is that membership is open to all.
• Point 9 says“European fighter jets” will be stationed in Poland, but doesn't mention the American F-35s currently there.
• Point 10 states that if Ukraine launches a missile“without cause” at St. Petersburg or Moscow (strangely implying it's fine to hit Smolensk or Voronezh, for instance) – then Kyiv loses its US security guarantee.
• Point 13 says Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8 (the group now known as the G7 after Russia was expelled in 2014). But it says nothing about whether the other six members would agree to that.
• Point 16 requires Russia to enshrine in law a policy of non-aggression towards Ukraine. However, it had already done so several times in the past, yet still invaded Ukraine in 2022.
• Point 22 foresees a demilitarized zone in parts of Donetsk that Russian troops would not be able to enter. How to enforce that is left unspecified.
• Point 26 gives everyone involved in the conflict full amnesty for their actions, including numerous alleged war criminals.
• Point 27 establishes a“Peace Council” that would be overseen by Trump, similar to the“Board of Peace” envisioned in the Gaza peace plan, also headed by Trump. This gives him the ability to determine whether the agreement is being violated (and, crucially, by whom).

Where to next?

Ukrainians have been sold a diplomatic lemon before. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which Kyiv agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it still held from the Soviet era in return for commitments by Russia and the US that its sovereignty and borders would be respected.

Just as the current US plan has been rebuffed by Kyiv, there is no hope of the European alternative being endorsed by the Putin regime. Indeed, it has already been rejected by one of Putin's senior advisers.

Where does this leave the peace process? US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already walked back the US plan from a concrete set of demands to a“living, breathing document,” and hinted at great progress in negotiations with Ukraine.

European and Ukrainian stakeholders have also made approving noises knowing that, if the White House loses interest, securing peace will be much harder.

Yet it's below the surface that the real soul-searching will be happening, in Ukraine, as well as in the broader West. Once again, the Trump administration has proven it is more interested in long-term deals with autocrats than achieving just and lasting resolutions to security crises.

That alone should give US allies pause, and not just in Europe. For those nations, it's one thing to doubt Putin's motives. But it's another thing entirely to have to doubt, now, America's as well.

Matthew Sussex, is an associate professor (adj.), Griffith Asia Institute, and a fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedI
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Faceboo
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsAp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddi
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Emai
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Prin

MENAFN25112025000159011032ID1110397224