Leaked US-Russia peace plan angers Europe despite diplomatic statement • FRANCE 24 English

Key Concepts

• EU Response to US-backed Peace Plan: The shift in the European Union's reaction to a leaked peace plan for Ukraine, from outrage to reluctant acceptance.
• US Leverage: The perceived lack of power and influence the EU has over the White House's decisions regarding the Ukraine conflict.
• Frozen Russian Assets: The controversial proposal for the EU to utilize its frozen Russian assets, including legal liability and financial contributions.
• EU's Internal Divisions and Lack of Capacity: The internal disagreements among EU member states and the failure to develop independent capabilities to support Ukraine.
• US Dictation of Terms: The US's ability to set terms and deadlines due to the EU's continued reliance on American support.
• "Surrender" for Ukraine: The characterization of the US-backed peace plan by many in the EU as a forced capitulation for Ukraine.

EU's Shifting Response to US-Backed Peace Plan

Initially, European leaders expressed strong disapproval of a leaked peace plan for Ukraine, labeling it "outrageous" and a "surrender for ordering surrender for Ukraine." The EU's chief spokesperson for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell (referred to as "Kaakalis" in the transcript), stated that Europe had not been consulted and that any peace plan must involve Ukraine and Europe. This initial reaction was based on uncertainty about the plan's backing within the Trump administration.

However, upon confirmation that the plan had the full support of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (referred to as "Marco Rubio" in the transcript, likely a misstatement) and President Trump, the EU's stance dramatically changed. Leaders issued a statement indicating they "can work with this peace plan" and "welcome this peace plan."

Acknowledgment of Limited EU Leverage

This shift in tune is interpreted as a direct acknowledgment by EU leaders that they possess "absolutely no power here" in influencing the White House's agenda. Despite the outward acceptance, the transcript emphasizes that this is not genuine acceptance of the plan's terms.

Outrageous Demands and Financial Implications

Behind the scenes, there is significant anger and shock within the EU regarding the plan's demands. A particularly contentious point is the proposal for the EU to:

• Utilize all of its frozen Russian assets.
• Assume the legal liability associated with seizing these assets.
• Pay an additional 100 billion euros to the US.
• This payment is intended to manage Ukraine's reconstruction, with the US financially benefiting from the arrangement.

This aspect of the plan has been described as "really it's shocked a lot of people here."

Delusional Thinking Regarding Trump's Stance

The transcript suggests that many in Brussels had been in a state of "denial" for months, misinterpreting President Trump's public comments. They believed Trump was becoming frustrated with Vladimir Putin and Russia, leading to the conclusion that "Trump has softened on Ukraine he's now anti-Russia he's back on our side." An EU official is quoted as stating that this thinking was "frankly delusional."

Lack of Domestic Appetite and EU's Internal Failures

The watered-down response from the EU is also attributed to a lack of domestic appetite for further conflict within EU countries. Furthermore, there is a significant lack of consensus among EU member states on how to support Ukraine.

The transcript highlights the EU's failure over the past years to develop an independent capacity to support Ukraine. Ideas for support have been stalled due to internal infighting and disagreements among member states, leaving these initiatives "paused."

Continued Reliance on the United States

As a result of these internal failures, Europe remains "entirely reliant on the United States." This reliance allows the US to "dictate these type of terms."

Deadline and Potential for Dissent

A deadline has been set for Thursday, by which Ukraine is expected to accept what many in the EU are calling a "surrender" ordered by the US. The transcript raises the question of whether any EU leaders will attempt to speak out against this, offering Ukraine an alternative path and reassurances of continued support independent of US demands. However, the credibility of such reassurances is questioned given the EU's past inaction in building its own independent strength to support Ukraine.

Conclusion

The EU's reluctant acceptance of the US-backed peace plan for Ukraine signifies a stark acknowledgment of its diminished leverage and continued dependence on the United States. While outwardly compliant, significant internal outrage exists over the plan's demands, particularly concerning the financial burden and legal liabilities placed on the EU. This situation is exacerbated by the EU's internal divisions and its failure to develop independent capabilities, leaving it unable to dictate terms or offer a credible alternative to US-imposed solutions. The coming days will reveal whether any EU leaders will challenge the US-dictated path for Ukraine.