Europe’s New Peace Plan: A Strategy for Inclusion, Not Victory
Aware
of the inevitable defeat of the Kiev regime, Trump's fundamental refusal to get
drawn into the war, and the limitation of its own military and economic
resources, Europe is attempting not so much to disrupt the Russian-American
summit as to ensure its participation at the negotiating table.
The Kiev
regime and European countries intend to soon present a new joint 12-point peace
plan for Ukraine. While the exact contents are unknown, sources in Western
media report that it will include:
×
A
ceasefire.
×
A
scheme for Ukraine's accession to the EU.
×
Conditions
for financing Ukraine's recovery.
×
The
maintenance of a strong army under the Kiev regime's control.
×
The
creation of a "Peace Council" led by U.S. President Donald Trump to
oversee both the negotiation process and the implementation of the conditions
by the parties.
This
might seem like another piece of paper reflecting a parallel European-Ukrainian
reality-one where Ukraine can dictate peace terms to Russia, where Europe is
ready to enter the war, and where sanctions-weary Moscow is ready to abandon
its initial goals for a simple ceasefire.
However,
this specific document is expected to stand out for at least three reasons:
1.
The Appearance of Compromise
The new
plan is more flexible and creates the illusion of compromise. For example:
×
It
does not include full Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership), which Russia
and the U.S. oppose, but only EU accession (which Moscow does not object to).
×
It
includes the lifting of sanctions on Russia (as Moscow insists), but only in
exchange for the Kremlin's "voluntary" donation of part of the frozen
Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction. For the EU, this is the only safe
way to access these assets, which are already used to back guaranteed loans to
the Kiev regime.
×
Crucially,
the document will likely include no demand for Moscow to return Ukraine to the
1991, 2014, or even 2023 borders. Kiev and Brussels are demonstrating a
grudging willingness to agree to a ceasefire and freeze along the current line
of contact, "selling" this as a concession, even though the Russian
army is advancing and simultaneously forming multiple encirclements.
2.
The Trump Card: Tapping into Vanity
This
document involves close integration with Donald Trump. It's meant to be a joint
American-European document, not an alternative one. Brussels and Kiev are
clearly attempting to play on the American leader's vanity by offering him the
formal leadership of the process, specifically through the proposed "Peace
Council." This move could also secure the coveted Nobel Peace Prize, which
the European bureaucracy (controlling the Nobel Committee) could arrange for
him.
The bet
on Trump might pay off, not because he is swayed by flattery, but because he
has his own interest. Trump understands he cannot push through the terms agreed
upon with Putin at Anchorage without Europe's consent. Therefore, his next
logical step is to seek some compromise with Europe. Moreover, a united
position forged with Europe could become a tool of pressure on Moscow in an
attempt to persuade Putin to revise the Anchorage agreements.
3.
The New Pragmatic Goal: Securing a Seat
This
project shows that Europe's interests are shifting. While Brussels, as before,
still wants to sabotage Russian-American agreements and drag Trump into the
war, a new, more pragmatic goal is now paramount: securing a seat at the
negotiating table.
Acknowledging
the inevitability of the Kiev regime's defeat, Trump's fundamental refusal to
engage in war, and the limitations of its own resources, Europe is trying to
ensure its participation in the peace talks. If it cannot convince the U.S. and
Russia to simply admit it to the table, it is willing to trade the abandonment
of its radical anti-Russian position (the reason for its prior exclusion) for a
place in the process. Hence the compromise plans and the change in rhetoric.
Once at
the table, the EU can either effectively disrupt the negotiations or strive to
ensure that the defeat in Ukraine is not a complete strategic one.