On Sunday, President Trump took to social media to voice his concerns about Ukrainian and European officials who are pushing to revise the much-debated 28-point peace plan that many see as too lenient towards Russia.
In his post on Truth Social, Trump labeled the ongoing war as a “loser” and expressed frustration that Ukrainian leaders had not shown sufficient appreciation for U.S. involvement. He also highlighted the continued fuel trade between Europe and Russia.
This outburst from Trump coincided with high-level meetings in Geneva where key Ukrainian figures met with national security advisers from France, Germany, and the U.K., alongside U.S. officials. According to a U.S. representative, discussions proved to be productive, with plans to delve deeper into the agreement’s details in future talks.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio termed the day’s discussions as possibly the most effective and significant meetings to date within the ongoing process, stating how the involved parties reviewed the U.S. proposal systematically. He noted that adjustments were being made with the aim of narrowing divergences and creating a plan comfortable for both Ukraine and the U.S.
Andriy Yermak also confirmed that consultations with European officials would continue to refine their proposals. He and Rubio acknowledged that any modifications would ultimately require sanctioning from both Trump and President Zelensky.
Separately, Zelensky took time to express gratitude to Trump for his contributions, while also affirming the importance of further adjustments before finalizing any agreement. He emphasized that achieving a resolution to the conflict and preventing future hostilities should remain the priority.
Earlier in the week, Trump imposed a Thursday deadline for Ukraine to respond to the proposed deal, which involves significant concessions, including territorial compromises and a limit on Kyiv’s military capabilities. Ukraine has maintained that the plan needs modifications with European perspectives integrated.
Striking a balance has been challenging for Ukraine—to keep diplomatic ties friendly with Trump while also seeking to negotiate terms that could compel more concessions from Russia. Opting for a version of the U.S. plan that aligns better with Ukrainian interests could pressure Russia to adjust its stance.
However, enabling terms to skew more towards Ukraine may complicate peace talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated the U.S. proposal could lay the groundwork for a resolution but insisted that vital aspects require tweaking.
In a follow-up discussion after meeting with European representatives, Rubio explained to reporters that reaching an agreement would take more time. He mentioned that the U.S. would allow for flexibility regarding the Thursday acceptance timeline posed by Trump.
“Our aim is to conclude this conflict swiftly; however, we require additional time,” Rubio remarked, highlighting unresolved issues concerning U.S. security guarantees and other critical elements before any agreement could be pursued with Moscow.
The discussions also included negotiating aspects related to NATO and the European Union on a parallel track to talks with Ukraine. The original U.S. vision includes denying NATO membership for Kyiv, necessitating a consensus from all 32 member states.
According to Rubio, the U.S. has a good grasp of Russia’s expectations. Yet, while Moscow believes the proposed outline lacks adequate Ukrainian concessions, Kyiv maintains the current agreement would leave it vulnerable to future aggression.
Zelensky has garnered support from European nations for amending pivotal sections of the peace proposal. He has engaged allies to adjust the rationale supporting the 28-point framework while the European contingent approaches negotiations with a strong alliance with the U.S. while staying publicly supportive.
During the Group of 20 meeting in South Africa, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen outlined three core principles that European countries believe Any deal должен учитывать.
First, that borders cannot be modified through force. Secondly, there should be no restrictions on Ukraine’s military capacity. Finally, the EU’s role and interests must be acknowledged.
Importantly, they emphasize that external actors should not determine the fate of the bloc’s sanctions, nor can they dictate Ukraine’s integration into the EU market as envisioned by the 28-point framework.
Prior to the Geneva meeting, the three European nations shared a revised draft of the U.S. plan implementing key changes including resisting the notion that Ukraine should concede currently held territory before talks can commence and suggesting negotiations begin only post-ceasefire.
The updated draft additionally capped the size of the Ukrainian military at 800,000 personnel as opposed to 600,000 outlined in the U.S. document. It refrains from an outright NATO ban for Ukraine stating that any potential entry hinges on a consensus that is currently lacking.
Furthermore, the European draft potentially allows for a reassurance force to be stationed in Ukraine, indicating that NATO would agree not to “permanently base troops under its authority in Ukraine during peace.” Such a reinforcement may not operate under NATO command.
Key European stakes are mentioned in the proposed agreement, advocating the use of immobilized Russian central bank assets held in Europe to fund Ukraine’s recovery. A significant portion of the $300 billion in Russian sovereign funds blocked in Western locations exists within European jurisdiction, subjected to EU and U.K. sanctions.
Following a press conference, when asked about the proposals from the European side, Rubio remarked: “I haven’t encountered any alternative plans.”
Reach out to Matthew Luxmoore at matthew.luxmoore@wsj.com and Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
