As the Russia-Ukraine war drags into its fourth year, Kyiv’s latest diplomatic maneuver on December 11, 2025, has sent shockwaves through global capitals. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the submission of a revised 20-point peace framework to the Trump administration – a document honed with European allies to counter what many view as a U.S.-heavy, Russia-friendly original proposal. With talks escalating amid coalition video calls and Trump’s pointed criticisms of Europe, the big question looms: Will Ukraine now follow the European plan instead of the US?
Will Ukraine Now Follow the European Plan Instead of the US?
The short answer: It’s a pragmatic hybrid, but Kyiv’s revisions tilt heavily toward a European-led vision – one prioritizing sovereignty and deterrence over Washington’s rush for a quick, concession-laden truce. The original U.S. 28-point draft, leaked last month and backed by Moscow, was slammed by Ukrainian and European leaders as “too favorable to Russia.” It included territorial handovers in Donbas, a constitutional ban on NATO membership, and caps on Ukraine’s military – echoes of Kremlin red lines that clashed with Europe’s security-first ethos.
Enter the “Coalition of the Willing”: On December 11, Zelenskyy convened virtual talks with leaders from 30 nations, including France, Germany, the UK, and Nordic states, to refine the plan. This E3+ (France, Germany, UK) backbone has tripled aid commitments in some cases – Germany upped monthly support, while France and the UK doubled theirs – contrasting U.S. hesitancy under Trump, who released a national security strategy on December 5 portraying Europe as “weak” and prioritizing U.S.-Russia “strategic stability.”
Zelenskyy’s post-submission X statement underscored this pivot: “The Ukrainian and European components are now more developed, and we are ready to present them to our partners in the U.S.” Trump’s response? A blistering call with E3 leaders, where he warned of “wasting time” on meetings and floated a weekend summit in Europe – only to hedge, “We will see.” X buzz reflects the tension: Posts highlight Zelenskyy’s election openness as a nod to U.S. democracy critiques, but frame it as a European-secured concession.
In essence, Ukraine isn’t ditching the U.S. outright – it’s leveraging European muscle to renegotiate on equal footing. With aid dipping to €32.5 billion in 2025 from €41.6 billion peaks, Kyiv’s bet is that Europe’s “fair settlement” – emphasizing EU integration by 2027 and Article 5-like guarantees – offers a sturdier path than America’s transactional haste.
What Has Ukraine Changed in the US Plan?
The U.S. blueprint evolved from a 28-point behemoth to a streamlined 20-point framework, but only after Kyiv’s point-by-point rebuttal, delivered via National Security Adviser Rustem Umerov to Jared Kushner on December 11. Zelenskyy ruled out ceding territory outright, declaring, “I have no right to do so under Ukrainian or international law.” European input – via a 24/28-point counterproposal – softened the edges, eliminating pro-Russian tilts.
Here’s a comparative table of key changes, based on leaked drafts and official statements:
| Aspect | Original US 28-Point Plan | Ukraine’s Revised 20-Point Version | Key Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Territorial Control | Hand over Donbas control to Russia; potential Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant concessions | No ceding of land; alternatives like demilitarized zones or international oversight for disputed areas | Preserves sovereignty; avoids rewarding Russian occupation of ~20% of Ukraine |
| NATO/EU Membership | Constitutional ban on NATO; vague EU path | No NATO ban; fast-track EU accession by 2027 with security pacts | Aligns with European deterrence; counters Moscow’s veto power |
| Military Caps | Strict limits on Ukraine’s armed forces size/weapons | Higher caps; allows “friendly forces” presence per Ukraine’s invite | Bolsters defense without full demilitarization |
| Security Guarantees | U.S.-led, with Russian veto on bases | “Article 5-like” multilateral guarantees; European emphasis | Shifts reliance from U.S. to NATO/EU collective |
| Economic/Reconstruction | U.S. control of frozen Russian assets (~$300B) for aid | Shared management; focus on postwar development doc with EU funding | Ensures transparent recovery; ties to broader coalition aid |
| Elections/Democracy | Implicit pressure for Zelenskyy to step down | Readiness for polls in 60-90 days with ally security aid | Addresses Trump’s legitimacy jabs; boosts international buy-in |
These tweaks, forged in London talks with E3 leaders on December 9, make the plan “doable” without capitulation. A separate reconstruction document, submitted alongside, outlines economic revival – a European priority amid U.S. aid uncertainties.
Will It Be Beneficial for a Peace Agreement?
Ukraine’s revisions aren’t knee-jerk; they’re a calculated triad of objectives: sovereignty defense, long-term deterrence, and diplomatic legitimacy.
Core Objectives
- Safeguard Territorial Integrity: By nixing land cessions, Kyiv aims to prevent a “frozen conflict” that emboldens Putin – a lesson from 2014’s Minsk accords. Zelenskyy told reporters the 20 points “define parameters for ending the war” without rewarding aggression.
- Secure Enduring Deterrence: The push for EU/NATO-lite guarantees and higher military allowances targets Russia’s “third invasion” threat, as Zelenskyy warned on X. Europe’s 24-point precursor emphasized “friendly forces” on Ukrainian terms, fostering a buffer against hybrid threats.
- Rebuild and Legitimize: The reconstruction blueprint seeks $500B+ in frozen asset redirection for infrastructure, tying peace to prosperity. Zelenskyy’s election pledge – “I’m ready, but need U.S. and European help for security” – counters Trump’s power-grab accusations, potentially stabilizing Kyiv’s domestic front.
Beneficial for Peace?
Yes – with caveats. This European-infused plan could catalyze a breakthrough by bridging U.S. speed with continental depth, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted: “Considerable diplomatic momentum.” It deters endless war by offering Russia economic incentives (e.g., restored energy flows) without existential wins, per WSJ leaks. Simulations from CSIS suggest such hybrids reduce relapse risks by 40% compared to one-sided deals.
Moscow’s silence and ongoing strikes (e.g., Odesa’s energy grid) signal rejection. If Trump withholds aid, Europe’s €32.5B floor may falter. Yet, for a “sustainable” accord – as WaPo op-eds frame it – this revision is a net positive, potentially unlocking U.S. investment in Ukrainian rare earths while locking in transatlantic unity.
Ukraine’s December 11 submission marks a watershed: Not a full embrace of Europe’s plan, but a rejection of U.S. overreach that could fracture alliances. As coalition talks unfold, watch for Thursday’s virtual summit outcomes – they may dictate if 2026 brings ceasefires or stalemates.
