By Matt Underwood Europeans push back at US plan that would force concessions from Ukraine. It’s really no surprise to see the pushback from Europe on this. The Ukrainian people have fought incredibly hard and sacrificed so much. To be asked to give up territory or make significant concessions after all of that? It’s just not something anyone would readily accept. From this perspective, the whole thing sounds like a tough sell, completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.
The plan itself, as it’s been described, seems to have a familiar pattern. It’s often been said that it involves individuals who lack experience in diplomacy or a deep understanding of Russian political culture. They might not even speak Russian, and they often find themselves outmaneuvered in meetings. These individuals then convince others, who are just as unfamiliar with the situation, that a deal is possible based on terms that reflect Russia’s perspective.
The terms, often drafted with input from Russia, frequently include demands that Ukraine can’t constitutionally or politically agree to. Sometimes they even include things that the individuals drafting the terms think the Russians have agreed to, but haven’t. And as a result, the Ukrainians reject the deal. The Europeans, recognizing the challenges and the unrealistic nature of the proposal, quietly voice their support for Ukraine’s position. Then, inevitably, Russia does something that makes the entire discussion irrelevant, and the cycle begins anew.
The reaction from Europe isn’t just about rejecting the proposed terms; it’s also about recognizing the potential consequences. Europe is closest to the conflict, and they would bear the brunt of any instability that might arise from forcing Ukraine into an unfavorable agreement. The sentiment that, if Ukraine is pressured into a bad deal, it’s Europe that will have to deal with the fallout, makes a lot of sense.
There’s a strong undercurrent of frustration directed at the idea that this plan is even being considered. It’s seen as a Trump/Putin plan, one that prioritizes a quick end to the fighting over what that peace actually looks like. The primary goal of the plan appears to be a Nobel Prize for the former US president, and it’s not based on genuine care for Ukraine or its people. Many in Europe see this as a continuation of a pattern, and it would seem like they’re tired of being surprised when actions follow this particular playbook.
The calls for Europe to “grow some balls” and take more decisive action are fairly loud. Arming Ukraine with longer-range strike weapons, or even considering the idea of Ukraine developing its own nuclear deterrent, are ideas being discussed. The argument is that if the existing plans aren’t working, perhaps more assertive measures are needed to achieve a favorable outcome. Some people even believe that capitulating to Russia would expose weakness, potentially undermining the West’s position with China.
The core issue seems to be a belief that the proposed plan isn’t a true peace plan; rather, it’s a surrender plan, perhaps even an attempt to obliterate Ukraine as a nation. Suggestions of downsizing the military, the inability to produce drones, and making Russian a government language, all point to a scenario where Russia will return and try to complete the job. It’s not seen as a sustainable solution, but rather a recipe for future conflict.
The financial burden of supporting Ukraine is also a point of contention. The reality is that Europe is currently footing most of the bill for military and humanitarian aid. The belief that the US is not providing enough support while attempting to drive the negotiations is a cause for anger. One could argue that it is not in the US interest to give anything to Ukraine now, because by doing nothing they are not at risk, whereas the Europeans’ countries could be invaded.
Ultimately, the issue seems to be a fundamental lack of trust in the negotiators and the motives behind the proposed plan. The criticism is harsh, but the underlying sentiment seems to be that they see the negotiators as lacking experience and an understanding of the complexities of the situation. Some believe that the negotiators’ primary goal is a business deal, not a lasting peace. As a result, the sentiment across Europe is that this plan is not an act of diplomacy, but an act of complete capitulation. The conclusion is that if the West does not offer any clear guarantees of security to Ukraine, they may be forced to seek out nuclear weapons for defense. The next war is coming, and it will be Europe’s problem.