US-backed Ukraine peace plan: What's at stake? • FRANCE 24 English

Key Concepts

• 28-Point Peace Plan: The initial US-proposed framework for ending the Russia-Ukraine war, heavily criticized by Ukraine and European allies as a "Kremlin wishlist."
• European Counter-Proposal: A revised peace framework developed by France, Germany, and the UK, aiming to address European security concerns and Ukrainian red lines.
• Territorial Swaps/Concessions: A contentious point in the peace talks, referring to the potential cession of Ukrainian territory to Russia.
• NATO Membership: A key demand of Ukraine, which the initial US plan sought to restrict.
• Security Guarantees: Provisions intended to ensure Ukraine's future security, with discussions around Article 5-style guarantees.
• Frozen Russian Assets: The potential use of Russian assets frozen by Western countries to fund Ukraine's reconstruction and reparations.
• Denazification: A Russian demand, widely seen as a pretext for its invasion.
• Demilitarization: A Russian demand for Ukraine to reduce its military capabilities.
• Reassurance Force: A potential deployment of troops by some countries to support Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
• Article 5 Guarantee: A collective defense clause within NATO, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

Summary of Peace Plan Negotiations

US-Ukraine Peace Talks and Initial US Proposal

The YouTube video transcript details ongoing peace talks between the US and Ukraine in Switzerland aimed at establishing a mutually acceptable peace plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. An initial 28-point US proposal, presented the previous week, faced significant criticism from Kiev and its European allies, who characterized it as a "Kremlin wishlist." This plan reportedly included several long-standing Russian demands that crossed Ukraine's established "red lines" and overlooked key European security concerns.

Key Points of the Initial US Plan (as reported):

• Territorial Concessions: Required Kiev to cede more territory to Russia.
• Military Size Cap: Barred Ukraine from joining NATO and proposed a cap on its peacetime military size at 600,000 troops.
• No NATO Membership: Explicitly prevented Ukraine from joining NATO.

American officials, however, described the proposal as a "work in progress."

European Counter-Proposal and Revisions

In response to the US proposal, France, Germany, and the UK developed a counter-proposal. This revised framework aimed to address the concerns raised by Ukraine and its allies.

Key Differences in the European Counter-Proposal:

• Military Size: Allowed Ukraine to have up to 800,000 troops in peacetime, an increase from the US plan's cap.
• Territorial Talks: Stated that talks on territorial swaps would commence from the current front lines, rather than assuming certain areas were already Russian, as the US version did.
• NATO Membership: Removed the point barring Ukraine from NATO.
• Seeding Land: Removed any reference to Ukraine seeding land to Moscow, suggesting territorial issues be resolved through further talks.

German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz indicated that US President Donald Trump had expressed openness to a jointly developed peace plan. However, Russia criticized the European version, with a Kremlin foreign policy aide calling it "completely unconstructive."

Panelist Perspectives on the US Plan

The discussion featured several panelists offering their views on the US plan and the negotiation process.

Mariana Butan (MIT):

• Characterized the 28-point US plan as essentially a "Russian plan," noting its language and formulation.
• Acknowledged its potential role in initiating conversation and creating urgency among negotiators.
• Identified non-controversial provisions like Ukraine remaining in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continuing its path towards the EU.
• Stated that other demands were a "non-starter" and a "red flag" for Ukraine.
• Questioned whether Russia would use the plan as a starting point for negotiations rather than a definitive list of demands.

Andre Dietrich (European Union Institute for Security Studies):

• Did not consider the US plan a "stunt" but rather a basis for a peace deal, reflecting the US administration's long-term interest in disengaging from the conflict.
• Noted that while referred to as a "Russian wishlist," the plan contained points potentially unpalatable to Russia, such as the army size cap and security guarantees.
• Mentioned that Russian officials reportedly preferred the original 28-point plan over the European-corrected one.

Christine Duan Clemon (Sorbonne Nouvelle University):

• Asserted that the initial 28-point plan was a "Witkov-Mitrif plan" (referring to Russian negotiators) designed to allow Russia to achieve its military operation goals.
• Described any perceived Russian concessions as a "trick" and the plan as "one-sided."
• Provided an example: the plan prohibited Ukraine from striking Russian cities but not vice-versa.
• Compared the European effort to "fairy tales" where "nasty gifts" are given, emphasizing the need for realism to prevent Russia from achieving its goals, which she termed "capitulation."
• Warned that the plan endangered the European Union's security architecture by potentially involving non-Ukrainian governments and volunteers.

Lisa Yasco (Ukrainian MP):

• Described the initial proposal as a "big shock" and an "absolute Russian plan," feeling "insulting" to Ukrainians.
• Stated that accepting such a plan would be "historical suicide" for Ukraine, referencing Russia's historical attempts at genocide.
• Called the plan an "almost perfect version of victory" for Russia and expressed sadness at US support for it.
• Expressed hope that the plan would not be signed in its initial form.

Unpacking the Details and Core Issues

The panelists delved deeper into the specifics and underlying principles of the negotiations.

Lack of Definitive Information:

• Mariana Butan highlighted that despite reading both the 28-point plan and the European counter-proposal, the exact outcome of the Geneva negotiations remained unknown.

Unacceptable Provisions:

• Butan reiterated that limiting the purview of NATO and requiring Ukrainian forces to retreat from areas not currently occupied by Russia were unacceptable.
• She also pointed to Russian demands regarding "denazification" and the "rights of Russian speakers" as a "veil" for future Russian influence operations.

The Concept of Restraint:

• Butan raised a critical point: the negotiations focused on the extent to which Ukraine, the victim of aggression, would be restrained, rather than restraining the aggressor. This, she argued, has implications for the international order established after World War II.

Russia's Lack of Interest in Genuine Peace:

• Christine Duan Clemon argued that Russia has no interest in real peace for pragmatic reasons:
  • Domestic Instability: A peace agreement would require soldiers to return home, potentially exacerbating domestic violence due to untreated PTSD.
  • Economic Shock: Sustaining the war effort had already impacted the Russian economy; peace would require a second, significant economic shock.
  • Unmet Goals: Russia had not achieved its "special operation" goals, making peace undesirable.
  • Ideological Problem: Civilian governance in occupied territories could lead to protests against Russian rule, undermining Russia's narrative of a superior regime.

Russian Influence and Tactics:

• Andre Dietrich suggested that the original 28-point plan was likely drafted by Moscow, citing language analysis and the reflection of Russia's maximalist demands. He also speculated that the plan was "purposely leaked" by Russians to expose divisions or because they weren't getting their desired outcomes.
• Christine Duan Clemon highlighted an increase in sabotage attacks on EU countries and individuals, as well as assassination attempts, as evidence of Russia's aggressive tactics even while seeking peace. She also mentioned Russia's disinformation campaigns, including the use of "manosphere" vocabulary to divide militaries.

The Sticking Point: Territorial Withdrawal:

• Lisa Yasco identified the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from occupied parts of Donetsk province as a major sticking point. She stated that while difficult, Ukraine might negotiate this if security guarantees were provided and if Russia did not seek legalization of occupied territories.
• She expressed pessimism about the prospects of such a peace, citing Russia's historical imperialism and ongoing crimes, including deportations and "filtration camps."

US Internal Dynamics and President Trump's Role:

• Mariana Butan described President Trump's fluctuating stance on the peace plan, suggesting his approach is transactional, aiming for a peace deal to claim victory. She warned that this speed could lead to an unsustainable deal.
• She noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was excluded from the process, with the plan being developed by individuals loyal to Trump, potentially without official mandates.

European Stance and Frozen Assets:

• Christine Duan Clemon stated that Russia dismisses European proposals as "unconstructive," framing the narrative as Russia offering a reasonable plan and Europeans being unreasonable.
• Andre Dietrich discussed the upcoming meeting of the "coalition of the willing" and the EU's focus on a diplomatic process leading to a sustainable ceasefire and just peace. He highlighted the potential significance of a reconstruction loan in December.
• The discussion turned to frozen Russian assets. Reports suggested Washington might take $100 billion for a US-Ukraine investment vehicle, with Europe adding another $100 billion, and the remainder going to a joint Washington-Moscow venture.
• Lisa Yasco vehemently opposed any joint venture with Moscow involving frozen assets, calling it "insanity" and emphasizing the need for these funds to be used for justice and Ukraine's recovery, not in partnership with the aggressor. She highlighted the immense human cost of the war, citing the deaths in Mariupol.

Internal Ukrainian Situation and Zelenskyy's Position:

• Lisa Yasco stated that the prevailing sentiment in Ukraine is to "end the war first, and then deal with everything else." She acknowledged internal political challenges but stressed the priority of defending Ukraine's interests.
• She expressed hope that Ukrainian society would remain strong and demand justice internally, not forgetting recent scandals.
• Mariana Butan noted that President Zelenskyy has a strong domestic constituency and must sell any peace plan to the Ukrainian people, a task made harder by recent corruption allegations. She highlighted the pressure on Zelenskyy both domestically and internationally.

Security Guarantees and Article 5:

• The possibility of an Article 5-style guarantee from the US, rather than NATO, was discussed.
• Mariana Butan suggested that such a guarantee would be beneficial but emphasized the importance of the details, including the commitment to deploy troops. She questioned whether the US was prepared for this and noted the provision against permanent NATO troop stationing.
• Andre Dietrich cautioned that Article 5 guarantees are built on actual deployments and credibility, and it's uncertain if these would be part of any deal. He reiterated that a strong Ukraine and a strong Ukrainian military are the best security guarantees.
• Christine Duan Clemon suggested observing the internal US balance, noting that some "oak" Republicans might push back against a rushed peace plan that gives too much to Russia.

Conclusion

The discussion underscores the complexity and sensitivity of the peace negotiations. While the US initially proposed a framework that was largely rejected by Ukraine and its allies, European nations have put forward revisions. The core issues remain territorial concessions, security guarantees, and the fundamental question of justice for Ukraine. Russia's motivations are viewed with deep suspicion, with panelists arguing that Moscow has little incentive for genuine peace. The internal political dynamics within both Ukraine and the US, as well as the broader implications for international order, are crucial factors shaping the path forward. The use of frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's recovery and reparations, without involving Russia, is a key demand from the Ukrainian side. Ultimately, any peace deal must be sustainable, just, and address the root causes of the conflict, rather than simply imposing a capitulation on the victim.