By Independent News Roundup
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
As Kyiv is signalling it might agree to a peace deal (with only “minor details” to be sorted out), one might have hoped for a fresh start in resolving the protracted Ukraine conflict. Instead, Europe is once again playing the role of spoiler.
The 28-point peace plan advanced by the US and now under active negotiation, in fact offers a pragmatic path to de-escalation — one that balances security concerns on both sides while funneling resources toward reconstruction. Yet key European leaders are already working to undermine it, pushing unattainable goals that risk protracting the conflict. This isn’t just shortsighted; it’s a blatant repeat of past blunders that have prolonged the crisis.
The plan has real merits, even if it’s far from perfect. As Mark Episkopo and Marcus Stanley (both Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft scholars) point out, at its core, it envisions a Ukrainian army capped at 600,000 troops — a size analysts agree Kyiv can realistically sustain without collapsing under economic strain. This is more than double what Ukraine sought in early 2022 talks and nearly eight times Russia’s initial demand.
On the thorniest issue of territory, the proposal calls for Ukraine to withdraw from just 1% of its 1991 borders: unconquered areas in Donetsk oblast. Crucially, this sliver would become a demilitarized zone, not Moscow-occupied land, leaving Kyiv in control of about 80% of its pre-2014 territory.
Moreover, Russia even drops its claims on other annexed regions like Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and there’s no forced de jure recognition of its sovereignty over Crimea or the bulk of Donbas. Eldar Mamedov (a Non-resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute) describes this as political “finesse”.
The plan smartly sidesteps full capitulation by channeling $100 billion in frozen Russian assets directly to Ukraine’s rebuilding — a concession that turns a financial weapon into a tool for recovery. Russia even greenlights Ukraine’s path to EU membership, with preferential market access during the process, while addressing Moscow’s long-standing fears of encirclement without touching NATO directly.
But the provision drawing some of the sharpest fire — and bearing perhaps the most underreported merit — is the safeguard for religious and ethnic minority rights. In a country as diverse as Ukraine, where Russian speakers and some Orthodox communities have faced marginalization, this clause mandates protections benchmarked against EU standards, not some unilateral Russian dictate.
It explicitly rejects Nazi ideology (a problem no one, by now, doubts to be real), promotes religious tolerance, and ensures minority ethnic groups aren’t sidelined. Critics howl that this panders to Moscow, but that’s nonsense. As Mamedov bluntly puts it: “As a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, the protection of minority rights is a long-term investment in Ukraine’s security and should be welcomed by those who claim to be its supporters.”
Why the backlash? Because it forces Kyiv to confront its own civil rights shortcomings, where Russians and other minorities have been relegated to second-class status through language laws and cultural crackdowns, a topic I’ve covered before. I’ve also noted that Ukraine’s ultranationalism has been a source of tensions with other neighbours (such as Poland), not just Russia.
A former US State Department adviser warned as much recently: Kyiv seems more interested in reclaiming land than protecting the people living there, especially in Donbas and Crimea, where Russian identity is strong. I’ve noted before that as long as these civil rights and ethnopolitical issues are not acknowledged (plus the matter of NATO expansion), there is little hope for peace in the region.
European leaders’ objections in fact reveal a deeper pattern of delusion. Figures like Britain’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, and France’s Emmanuel Macron are lining up to dismiss the plan, with Berlin already drafting a counter-proposal that clings to Ukraine’s “maximalist” demands. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, sums it up in her “weaken Russia, support Ukraine” mantra — this leaves no room for compromise, offering instead just endless escalation.
The NATO membership red line is the prime example: the plan requires Ukraine to forgo it, a non-starter for hawks. But thus far, no European power has shown the stomach to fight for it directly. Mamedov nails it: “Those European leaders who now oppose Trump’s plan know full well that Ukraine won’t be joining NATO… Then what is the point of prolonging the war by insisting on something both sides know is not going to happen?”
They are not advancing peace; they’re instead engineering failure to keep the conflict simmering, hollowing out the US proposal until Moscow walks away. One may recall that this isn’t Europe’s first time in torpedoing talks. Back in April 2022, as Zelensky and Putin edged toward a summit brokered by Turkey and Israel, Boris Johnson swooped into Kyiv with a clear message: No deals with “war criminals”; the West wants you to squeeze Putin harder.
Sources close to Zelensky told Ukrainska Pravda the visit killed the momentum — three days later, Putin declared negotiations dead. So much for London’s “leadership.” That intervention, egged on by Washington (under Biden), turned a potential neutrality deal—where Ukraine would keep more territory than it holds today — into endless confrontation.
Political scientist John Mearsheimer has long debunked the myth that Putin sought to conquer all of Ukraine; 2022 leaked talks show Moscow only wanted neutrality and demilitarization — goals the West deliberately scuttled. The deeper roots of today’s crisis are to be found in NATO expansion plus the West’s own role in the Maidan coup and the rise of far-right elements in Kyiv.
Now, as Washington under Trump, with all his flaws, pushes a realistic deal, Europe’s old guard is sabotaging it again to stay relevant. By attacking even the minority rights clause, Europe betrays its own alleged values.
.svg){kind=logo}
