What the US peace plan hides and why Trump lost this round
The "peace negotiations" on 23 April in London - in which many placed high hopes - brought neither Ukraine nor the world closer to ending the war or even pausing it. In reality, the London meeting was deliberately sabotaged before it even began. First, the US announced it would not participate at the political level, followed by France and Germany downgrading their level of engagement.
Ukraine responded skeptically to Trump's "final offer" peace plan, and European allies backed Kyiv, expressing their own dissatisfaction with the proposal. Meanwhile, technical-level talks continue. Kyiv has already communicated its red lines to Washington, and Trump's plan may still be revised.
Read more about Ukraine's key demands and the crucial details of a potential deal in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: "Not just Crimea, not just NATO: the unspoken details of the 'peace deal' between Ukraine, the US and Russia." Last week in Paris, the US shared its initial peace proposal with European partners - a vague outline of peace principles. American media reported that this was President Trump's "last offer," which could be slightly tweaked but not rejected outright.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned, upon leaving France, that the US might withdraw from the negotiation process if peace prospects were not evident "in the coming days." Washington later confirmed that Rubio's warning was tied to the next meeting scheduled for April 23 in London. But these threats didn't work. On 23 April, the US received a direct and unambiguous response from the Ukrainian government: Kyiv is ready to negotiate, but not to surrender.
Unsurprisingly, even a cursory reading of the plan reveals it is heavily skewed in Russia's favor. Moreover, European allies took Ukraine's side. Overall, this round was a diplomatic defeat for the US.
The Americans learned that their blackmail tactics and threats to exit the talks no longer intimidate their partners. These moves failed to sway Kyiv or European capitals. Now, the Trump administration faces a dilemma: either follow through and exit the talks - or risk further damaging its credibility with allies.
Additionally, threats to cut military aid to Ukraine - once Washington's "nuclear option" - are losing their potency. Still, Ukraine and European capitals want the US to remain engaged - but not at any cost. Ukraine has clear red lines it will not cross: recognition of the Russian annexation, including Crimea, is unacceptable under any circumstances; the right to choose its own security (NATO) and economic (EU) alliances must not be restricted; and Ukraine will not accept any agreement that limits its Armed Forces or defence capabilities.
Trump has thus far shown interest only in Ukraine's stance on Crimea. While he reacted angrily to Zelenskyy's comments about red lines, he quickly reassured that they would not obstruct a peace deal. "Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognise Crimea as Russian Territory," Trump later wrote, potentially signaling a compromise that could also satisfy Russia and EU states, none of which are being asked to recognise the annexation either.
A similar compromise might be reached on other occupied territories.
However, one critical issue remains unaddressed in Trump's brief plan: the future of Ukraine-Russia relations - both now and in the long term.
If you notice an error, select the required text and press Ctrl + Enter to report it to the editors.