By Matt Underwood Alright, let’s dive into the core of the matter: the European counter-proposal to the US Ukraine peace plan. It’s a critical piece of the puzzle, and it’s essential to grasp the key differences and the potential implications.
Compared to the US-drafted plan, the European counter-proposal shows some important shifts. One of the most significant changes is the removal of a clause that would have restricted Russia from invading its neighbors, while also stating NATO would not expand further. This clause, it seems, was a point of contention and was deemed unsuitable by the European side.
Next, the European counter-proposal reworks the post-agreement dialogue between Russia and NATO. The original plan suggested the United States would moderate this discussion, but the European version omits this and allows the dialogue to go forward without the US as a moderator. The aim, as before, remains to address security concerns and foster de-escalation, but the approach appears to be modified.
There’s also a significant adjustment regarding the size of the Ukrainian military. The original plan proposed a cap of 600,000 troops, but the European counter-proposal ups this to 800,000 in peacetime. This could be interpreted as a nod to Ukraine’s need for a robust defense force to deter future aggression, or perhaps a reflection of the EU’s different perspective on Ukrainian sovereignty.
Another important point to note is the revised stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership. Instead of a hard guarantee against joining, the European plan clarifies that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would hinge on the consensus of all NATO members. This opens the door to future possibilities while acknowledging the current reality: a consensus for Ukraine’s immediate membership doesn’t exist.
The European plan also addresses the matter of troop deployment. The original draft indicated NATO would not station troops in Ukraine, period. The European counter-proposal refines this by stating that NATO will not permanently station troops *under its command* in Ukraine *in peacetime*. This leaves room for the potential of short-term deployments or deployments under different leadership, which again underscores a more nuanced approach.
The European counter-proposal makes a notable change concerning fighter jets. The original plan mentioned European fighter jets stationed in Poland, a detail that seems almost redundant given Poland’s NATO membership. The inclusion of this seems strange and it’s hard to see the point of including this.
Now, let’s consider the financial aspects. The European plan presents a more straightforward approach to dealing with frozen Russian assets. The original plan outlined a complex structure involving US and European investments and a joint US-Russian investment vehicle. The European counter-proposal, however, emphasizes the full financial reconstruction and compensation of Ukraine, including the use of frozen Russian sovereign assets until damages are repaid. This is a substantial shift, aiming for more comprehensive financial remedies.
Furthermore, the European plan restructures the process of the working group. The American-Russian working group on security issues from the original proposal has been expanded into a security taskforce with the participation of the US, Ukraine, Russia, and the Europeans. This suggests a more inclusive approach, involving all key players in ensuring adherence to the agreement.
The removal of certain clauses is worth pointing out. One removed a call to abolish discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education. The European proposal does not feature this, and another clause involving “Nazi ideology and activities.”
Regarding territorial arrangements, the European plan takes a different approach. The original plan recognized Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as effectively Russian territory, with provisions for other areas. The European plan instead calls for Ukraine to commit to not attempting to reclaim occupied territory through military means, and suggests negotiations on territorial swaps starting from the Line of Contact. This signals an intention to seek a more negotiated and perhaps less absolute resolution to the territorial issues.
Elections in Ukraine will happen as soon as possible after a peace agreement.
Amnesty is something that has had an adjustment. The original plan proposed full amnesty for all involved in the conflict. However, the European counter-proposal introduces a provision to address the suffering of victims. It’s unclear how exactly this will be achieved, but it represents a recognition of the need to address the human cost of the conflict.
One question that needs to be asked is, Why would Russia agree to any of this? The plan is just as bad. Still appeases to Russia too much, still rewards the US for doing fuck all. And who will most likely disregard any given guarantees in the future. EU still gets shafted on any economic deals, while going to take the majority of the bill through the EU connections.
The counter-proposal does not mention the clean up of the entire fuckery that is left behind on unexploded ordinance, and mines (land and sea).
In essence, the European counter-proposal seeks a more nuanced and potentially more sustainable path to peace in Ukraine. While it still addresses some key issues, the shift away from a US-led approach, the emphasis on Ukrainian sovereignty, and the more comprehensive approach to financial compensation, highlights a fundamentally different approach. The changes suggest a focus on a negotiated settlement, even though they will have the challenge of what can be agreed upon. Ultimately, the success of any peace plan hinges on the willingness of all parties to compromise and adhere to the terms.