Ian Proud
They keep trying to derail the ongoing U.S.-brokered peace talks.
Left to their own devices, European leaders would be happy for the war in Ukraine to continue, with little regard for the enormous human cost involved, the continued destruction of infrastructure, nor the increasingly corrupt and repressive tendencies of Zelensky and his government.
It came as little surprise, therefore, that the Europeans have been working hard to derail President Trump's efforts - which are already enormously challenging - to bring the war to an end. The U.S. approach, characterised by a post on X from Vice President JD Vance, is to ensure a peace plan that has to "be acceptable to both sides".
That is a basic principle of diplomacy. No one truly wins in war and, to bring it to an end, statesmanship is needed with both sides willing to make concessions in the interest of a longer-term peace. Despite continuing to press home the advance of Russia's army on the battlefield, and in a much stronger position economically to sustain the war, President Putin has shown a willingness to settle and draw a line to stop the bloodshed.
Yet, and as Vance said in his post, "There is a fantasy [in Europe, Kyiv and among some quarters in Washington] that if we just give more money, more weapons, or more sanctions, victory is at hand. Peace won't be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land. It might be made by smart people living in the real world."
The cold hard reality is that Ukraine will also need to make concessions to bring the war to an end and that European leaders will have to recognise the inevitability of this.
And yet, after the U.S. kickstarted detailed peace talks with Ukraine in Geneva it quickly became clear that the Europeans are still living in a fantasy in which they can somehow force Russia to make all the required concessions for peace, without the economic means, nor the military will to do so.
Following publication of an initial draft 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, western media were quick to circulate a new version that had been edited by the National Security Advisers of Germany, France and the UK. (It amazes me - or perhaps it doesn't - that no one is the western media has asked how the document was leaked so quickly.)
The initial 28-point U.S. plan - which was less of a plan than and agenda for talks - was not perfect by any means, but it did include elements that tried to deal with the concerns of both Russia and Ukraine.
The 27-point edited plan from the Europeans was absolutely designed to ensure that Russia would not agree to a peace deal and would continue fighting on the battlefield.
By far the biggest reason for this centred around NATO. The U.S. draft included a clause that Ukraine would give up its ambition for NATO membership and that NATO would include in its charter documents a commitment never to permit Ukrainian membership.
The European version changed that to Ukraine only being able to join NATO through a consensus of members which does not exist. But this quite obviously states the current position of NATO towards Ukraine's membership; that because there is no consensus, Ukraine cannot join. However, the oft stated position from the Russian side is that one day that consensus may be found, for example under a future Democrat party U.S. President. So, all this does is to leave the door ajar for Ukraine to join one day in the future. And it was precisely this concern that President Putin expressed in the frantic days of diplomacy that preceded the start of the war. "If not tomorrow, then what about the day after tomorrow?" Notably, clause 3 in the draft U.S. text that "NATO will not expand further" was also completely removed by the Europeans (hence the European plan has 27 points, not 28 points).
Moreover, other language in the U.S. draft was watered down. Gone a commitment never to station NATO troops in Ukraine; the proposed European clause stated NATO troops would not be permanently stationed in Ukraine during peacetime. That both left open the possibility of temporary deployments of NATO troops to Ukraine and a permanent deployment in any future war.
On the basis that the proposal is to bring peace to Ukraine, adding in a text that allows for the temporary deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine when peace breaks out seems designed to ensure that peace won't happen. Not least as the U.S. draft, as it stood, included solid language on security guarantees for Ukraine that involved a military response to a hypothetical future war from Russia.
The other striking aspect of the European so-called "counter-proposal" was its soft pedalling on Ukraine's future EU membership. While the U.S. draft spoke of EU membership as a "right" for Ukraine, the Europeans changed the wording to say that Ukraine would be "eligible" for EU membership, and that its application would be "evaluated". This is diplomatic weasel wording for "membership is not guaranteed". So, while the Russian side has said it no longer has objections to Ukraine joining the EU, European leaders are starting to focus on the enormous cost and disruption that this will involve, as I have pointed out many times before.
Lacking the money to pay for Ukraine, the Europeans also radically changed the language on the cost of post-war reconstruction. Out, the U.S. language to divide and investment some part of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets, in language that Russia would have to pay for all reconstruction, and that its assets would remain frozen until this was the case. Clearly, and as I have also pointed out previously, holding on to Russian assets will disincentivise Russia from striking for peace. Why would Russia want to end a war that it is willing while paying for all the damages caused by the war and not receive back its frozen reserves in the process? It would arguably be less expensive to keep fighting.
There were other curious additions by the Europeans too. One removed the U.S. proposal that elections be held in Ukraine 100 days after the peace deal is agreed, to a commitment to hold elections "as soon as possible". This appears obviously a sop to Zelensky's team, leaving open the prospect of Presidential elections being kicked down the road for an indeterminate period of time after the war ends.
The language on promoting mutual understanding and reconciliation between Ukraine was watered down and wording on Nazi ideology removed.
On paper, the U.S. 28-point plan, and the European 27-point counter-proposal appeared fairly similar. Yet, read closely, and the U.S. plan appears one for peace, while the European is one for more war.
Despite this, the Americans appear to be in the driving seat on the negotiations, keeping the Europeans largely out of the substance of the negotiations. A further intensive day of discussions with Ukraine in Geneva on 24 November slimmed the peace proposal down to 19 points. It will be a monumental challenge for President Trump to find a solution that will be acceptable both to Russia and to Ukraine. But he has a far greater chance than anyone in Europe.