The disclosure of the American plan for Ukraine, negotiated directly between Washington and Moscow and presented as a fait accompli, confronts Europe with its most decisive moment since the end of the Second World War. The new US administration has made it clear that European security is no longer a priority and the plan redesigns the continent’s security architecture, redefines borders by force and transforms Ukrainian sovereignty into a merely formal category.
The document begins by stating that Ukraine’s sovereignty will be “confirmed”, but immediately limits it. It imposes the reduction of the armed forces to 600 thousand personnel, enshrines in the Constitution permanent neutrality and the renunciation of any future membership of NATO and prevents the presence of foreign forces in the territory. Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are now de facto recognized as Russian. Additional parts of Donbass under Ukrainian control become demilitarized zones recognized as Russian territory, and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia remain frozen along the line of contact.
The United States also offers conditional security guarantees, a bilateral economic package with Russia, access to profits from frozen Russian assets and Russia’s progressive reintegration into the global economy, including a possible return to the G8. The agreement also provides for a Peace Council chaired by Trump himself, with powers to impose sanctions if any party violates the agreement. memorandum.
In the Commission President’s response, Ursula von der Leyen stated that no plan can be credible if it is based on forced territorial concession. And he highlighted three essential principles. First, borders cannot be changed by force. Second, no sovereign country can see its armed forces limited to a point that makes it vulnerable to future attacks. Third, the centrality of the European Union in peacebuilding must be fully reflected. Von der Leyen also recalled that Ukraine has the right to choose its destiny and that this destiny is European, starting with reconstruction, integration into the single market and the defense industrial base and culminating with accession to the Union. She added a central moral point: no peace will be acceptable without the return of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia.
The G20 Summit in Johannesburg reinforces this position, reaffirming the defense of multilateralism, condemning the use of force for territorial acquisition and insisting on the obligation to respect international law, humanitarian law and the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Accepting the American plan would mean validating violence as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, destroying the central pillar of the European order and undermining the Union’s ability to defend its values. It would be the victory of force over law and the principle of the strongest over the sovereignty of States.
The choice facing Europe is existential. Either accept this plan and abdicate its founding principles, or take responsibility for your own security and the future of the rules-based international order. This second path requires joint investment in defense, reconstruction of the European industrial base, solid and lasting support for Ukraine and, above all, an autonomous and coherent foreign policy. It also demands that Europe build a new global network of allies that share the principles of the United Nations Charter, in a partnership of equals with the democracies of Africa, the Americas, the Pacific and Asia and in a structured dialogue with other countries that, while not sharing the same principles, experience the same afflictions.
The future of Europe depends on this choice. If you fail, you risk slowly entering the long, cold, dark night reserved for those who refused to act when history called upon them. The moment of decision has arrived.
Guest Professor UCP/UNL/UÉ