By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a tense encounter between Zelenskyy and Trump, UK, France, and Ukraine agreed to collaborate on a ceasefire plan to present to the United States. This initiative, supported by other nations forming a “coalition of the willing,” aims to secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The plan prioritizes strengthening Ukraine’s military capabilities, incorporating European security guarantees, and ensuring US backing to prevent Russia from violating any agreement. European leaders also committed to increasing defense spending, seeking to demonstrate both self-reliance and a united front in supporting Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Starmer’s announcement of a “coalition of the willing” presenting a Ukraine peace plan to the US is a complex maneuver, sparking diverse reactions and raising several crucial questions. The very idea of needing US approval for a European-led peace initiative seems counterintuitive to many, especially given the current state of US politics. The suggestion that this approach is primarily designed to manage potential outbursts from Trump, rather than genuinely seek US input, is certainly plausible.
The argument for bypassing the US entirely gains considerable traction when considering the unpredictability of Trump’s response and the perceived alignment of a section of the Republican Party with Russian interests. Bypassing the US altogether would remove a potentially destabilizing element from the process, simplifying the path toward a resolution and minimizing the risk of US actions undermining the peace plan.
The proposed coalition’s intention to present the plan to the US, however, indicates a recognition of the US’s ongoing role in supporting Ukraine, and perhaps an attempt to secure some level of US backing, even if just to prevent direct US interference against the peace deal. Even a weak or reluctant US endorsement might carry some weight in influencing Putin’s calculations.
However, the focus on gaining US approval might be misplaced. The effectiveness of a peace plan hinges on the willingness of all parties involved, primarily Ukraine and Russia. The US’s unpredictable behavior casts doubt on its reliability as a guarantor of the peace deal, hence the arguments for focusing on a purely European-led solution to avoid potential pitfalls.
There’s a strong argument for a direct approach with Russia, excluding the US from the core negotiations. This route would potentially avoid the inherent uncertainties caused by US involvement, particularly in light of concerns that the US’s actions may be influenced by other factors, perhaps more aligned with its domestic politics than with a sincere desire to achieve a lasting peace in Ukraine.
The concern that Europe lacks the military capacity to enforce any peace deal without US support is a valid point. However, the counter-argument that the EU, along with Ukraine, could build a new security architecture independent of the US should also be considered. The proposed inclusion of Ukraine in a NATO-style alliance, excluding the US, Hungary and Turkey, reflects this ambition.
The inherent risks of excluding the US are significant. The US is a major military power, and its absence from any security guarantee weakens the overall arrangement. A more optimistic view suggests that excluding the US from the initial negotiations might force Europe to forge stronger and more independent partnerships, a situation that could actually strengthen Europe’s geopolitical position in the long run.
The question of whether the EU can meaningfully enforce a peace deal without significant US military involvement remains critical. While the possibility of sending EU troops into Ukraine is raised, it’s a highly controversial option due to the potential for escalating the conflict into a larger European war, and even WW3. The risk of direct conflict with Russia is a major deterrent against such action, making the US involvement, at least initially, a factor that needs to be carefully considered.
Ultimately, the decision on whether to involve the US is a high-stakes gamble. Bypassing the US removes a potentially volatile factor from the equation, but simultaneously reduces the leverage that a US security guarantee might offer. The viability of a successful peace plan may ultimately rest more on convincing Putin than obtaining a symbolic US endorsement. The strategy employed, then, needs to reflect this reality.