Europe Pushes Back: How the EU Is Rewriting the US Ukraine Peace Plan
On paper, it is a peace plan. In reality, it is a power struggle.
A draft US plan for ending the war in Ukraine has met firm resistance from Europe’s big three—Britain, France, and Germany. They have drawn up a counter-proposal that keeps Ukraine stronger, pushes back on territorial concessions, and demands tougher terms on Russian money frozen in the West.
Europeans propose changes to US…
This is not just another diplomatic document. It is a test of how far Europe is willing to go to back Ukraine—and how much control Washington expects to keep over the endgame.
What Is the US Ukraine Peace Plan?
The original US blueprint, prepared for talks in Geneva, tries to do three things at once:
Freeze the front lines and open talks on territory
Limit the size of Ukraine’s future army
Use frozen Russian assets to fund reconstruction under a US-led scheme
Europeans propose changes to US…
On the surface, it looks like a structured path away from war. In practice, the details matter.
The US draft reportedly:
Caps Ukraine’s armed forces at about 600,000 troops, with no clear qualifier
Pre-bakes the idea that some areas under Russian control should be treated as “de facto Russian”
Channels around $100 billion of frozen Russian funds into a US-led investment vehicle, with Washington keeping a large share of the profits
Europeans propose changes to US…
For Kyiv and many Europeans, that went too far.
Europe’s Counter-Proposal: Bigger Army, Stronger Guarantees
The European “E3” powers have now tabled their own text. It does not throw out the US plan. Instead, it edits it line by line.
Key changes include:
Europeans propose changes to US…
Higher army cap
Ukraine’s forces would be capped at 800,000 troops “in peacetime”, not 600,000 without context.
That phrase “in peacetime” is crucial. It leaves room for surges if Russia threatens again.
No automatic territorial giveaways
Europe’s draft says talks on territorial swaps must start from the current Line of Contact, not from any assumption that parts of Ukraine are simply lost.
That means no automatic recognition of Russian control as legitimate.
NATO-style security pact
The proposal calls for a US security guarantee similar to NATO’s Article 5. An attack on Ukraine would trigger a major response.
It is not full NATO membership, but it points in that direction—deterrence backed by American power.
This is Europe saying: peace, yes—but not at the cost of turning Ukraine into a demilitarised buffer state.
Why the Army Cap Matters So Much
Army numbers sound technical. They are not. They are political.
A 600,000-troop cap, with no peacetime qualifier, risks freezing Ukraine’s strength at a level that might look tidy in a spreadsheet but fragile on a hostile border. An 800,000-troop cap “in peacetime” does three things:
Signals long-term support
It says Ukraine can keep a serious standing army even after the shooting stops.Deters future attacks
Russia will think twice if Kyiv can rapidly scale up from a strong base force.Respects Ukrainian reality
This is a country that has mobilised millions, lost tens of thousands, and seen entire cities destroyed. Telling it to shrink its army too far would never fly in Kyiv.
For Europe, which lives next door, this is not abstract. A weak Ukraine is a problem they will feel first.
Territorial Swaps: No “De Facto Russian” Stamp
Another flashpoint is territory.
The US plan, as reported, leans toward recognising some Russian-held lands as “de facto Russian” as a starting point for talks. Europe’s response is subtle but sharp:
Start from the Line of Contact, not from labels
Make no early statement that any region is permanently lost
That change gives Ukraine more room. It also avoids rewarding Russia for using force to redraw borders.
Is this a magic fix? No. Any final deal will still need brutal trade-offs. But Europe wants those choices made at the table, not baked into the first draft.
Frozen Russian Assets: Who Pays—and Who Profits?
Follow the money and you see another fault line.
The US draft suggests that about $100 billion of frozen Russian sovereign assets would go into a US-led reconstruction fund, with Washington taking around half the profits, and another chunk going into a separate US-Russia investment vehicle.
Europeans propose changes to US…
The European counter-proposal is blunt:
Russian sovereign assets stay frozen until Moscow pays for the damage
Those assets should support Ukraine’s reconstruction and financial compensation, not become a shared profit pool
In short, Europe wants Russian money to rebuild Ukrainian cities, not to feed long-term joint ventures.
That reflects both politics and risk:
European states host most of the frozen assets and will face legal challenges
Their voters see this as war damages, not an investment opportunity
Any sign of “shared profit” with Moscow could blow up domestically
A NATO-Style Security Guarantee: Half-Step to Membership
The call for a US guarantee that mirrors NATO’s Article 5 may be the most significant shift of all.
If agreed, it would mean:
Any new large-scale attack on Ukraine could trigger a collective response led by the United States
Russia would have to assume that a renewed invasion risks a wider war
Ukraine gains a long-term security anchor, even if full NATO membership remains blocked
For Washington, that is a big commitment. For Europe, it is the price of a peace that does not collapse in a few years.
What This All Means for the War—and for You
This fight over clauses and troop numbers matters far beyond Geneva’s conference rooms.
For Ukraine, the European edits are a lifeline. They keep the door open to a serious defense, real reconstruction money, and the chance to avoid surrendering territory by default.
For Europe, it is an act of self-interest. A secure, armed Ukraine is a shield for the European Union. A hollowed-out buffer state is a permanent security hole.
For the US, it is a test of leadership. Washington wants to steer the peace process and manage costs. Europe is saying: we agree on the goal, but not at any price.
For Russia, the message is mixed. Negotiations are real. So is Western fatigue. But the West is still arguing for a strong Ukraine, not a broken one.
For ordinary people watching energy prices, inflation, and election campaigns, this may feel distant. Yet the shape of this deal will affect:
Defense spending in Europe and the US
The future of NATO
How other powers, from China to Iran, read Western resolve
Whether wars of conquest look rewarding or suicidal in the 21st century
In the end, peace plans are about more than stopping the guns. They define who gets to feel safe—and who lives with a constant threat on the horizon.
Europe’s new draft does not end the war. But it does show one thing clearly: the fight over Ukraine’s future is now as much about the architecture of the post-war world as it is about the front lines today.
