Proposed US peace plan for Ukraine risks causing serious tensions within NATO — WSJ Analysis

The Trump administration's efforts to end the war in Ukraine are fueling new concerns about the future of NATO. This week's events appear to reinforce growing skepticism in Europe about America's commitment to the alliance that underpinned Western cohesion after World War II.

Donal Trump and Mark Rutte at the NATO summit in The Hague/PHOTO: EPA/EFE

While White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is in Moscow for another round of talks with the Kremlin, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be absent from the biannual meeting of NATO foreign ministers, represented by his deputy. It is the first such absence of the top US diplomat since 1999, when Washington was involved in the Middle East peace process.

Rubio's absence takes on added weight at a time when negotiations over Ukraine are prompting many European leaders to question whether the priorities of the United States still coincide with those of Europe, The Wall Street Journal correspondents note.

Leaks about the draft peace plan and a phone call between Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign policy adviser, have fueled the perception that the Trump administration is more interested in improving relations and economic cooperation with Russia than strengthening transatlantic security.

Strong discontent in European capitals

Two elements of the peace plan, structured in 28 points, generated strong discontent in European capitals. On the one hand, the draft presents Russia as a winning side and Ukraine as the losing side, demanding that Kiev cede strategic territories still under its control, reduce its armed forces and accept the absence of solid security guarantees from the US or European allies in the event of a new Russian aggression. On the other hand, the plan describes the United States as a mediator between Russia and NATO, implicitly suggesting that Washington is distancing itself from its traditional role within the alliance.

Although the terms of an eventual peace deal are still under discussion and the Europeans have secured some changes to the plan, skepticism has grown after new information about the drafting process, including the revelation of a conversation in which Witkoff allegedly gave Ushakov pointers on what President Putin should convey to Donald Trump.

“It's Russia's dream”

“It's Russia's dream. Ever since the Soviet era, the goal has been to create a wedge between the US and Europe. I think Trump is ignoring Europe because he considers it unimportant,” said Ben Hodges, former US Army lieutenant general.

A French official had previously said that, without European opposition, Putin and Trump would have already reached a deal. According to him, Europe finds itself isolated, while Washington reduces its involvement, which forces European states to assume greater responsibility for their own security.

Emily Ferris, a Russia expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, believes that Europeans and Americans are approaching the peace process from different perspectives: Europe looks at Russia's rearmament and fears a possible new conflict, while Washington is looking for a quick solution — a cease-fire agreement and a period of relative stability. The differences, she says, reflect Europe's geographical proximity to the conflict and the United States' concern about China as a long-term strategic threat.

The only viable strategy would be to undermine the alliance from within

Ed Arnold, a former officer in the British army, says that President Putin knows that Russia cannot defeat NATO in a direct conflict, especially in the context of the difficulties encountered in Ukraine. The only viable strategy would be to undermine the alliance from within by fueling political divisions — a goal consistently pursued by Moscow.

The latest version of the American plan risks deepening these divisions, as it would allow Russia to avoid significant consequences for the invasion, facilitating its return to the G8 group and economic cooperation with the United States, including in the Arctic region.

“It would produce major fractures in the transatlantic partnership. Politically, Russia would be on the verge of victory”, says Arnold.

According to the German analyst Carlo Masala, bringing Russia back into the global economic circuit would complicate the efforts of European politicians to justify to their own electorates the need to increase defense budgets.

A divided NATO would give the Kremlin the opportunity to test the Alliance's resolve, including in the Baltic states, former Soviet territories. Whether Poland and Germany, both without nuclear capabilities, could be a sufficient deterrent remains an open question.

WP: US attempts to mediate resolution of Ukraine war look increasingly like diplomatic 'Mole Day'

The United States is again trying to push forward peace talks for Ukraine, but the process appears to be going through the same stages again, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. A US delegation is in Moscow today, December 2, for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a revised peace plan, which the White House says it views with “a lot of optimism” amid mounting pressure on an increasingly vulnerable Ukraine.

Although US emissaries are tasked with advancing the negotiations, Kiev has yet to give a definitive agreement on the proposal. Late last week, Donald Trump's special representative, Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Florida with the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Rustem Umerov. Both sides later said “much more work” was needed, The Washington Post correspondents note.

On December 1, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visited Paris to brief European leaders, concerned that talks on Ukraine's long-term security architecture are proceeding without their direct involvement, and to garner political support ahead of possible major decisions.

European leaders aim to “demonstrate Europe's alignment with Kiev's position”

Mudjtab Rahman, head of Europe at consultancy Eurasia Group, said Zelenskiy's meetings with President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders were aimed at “demonstrating Europe's alignment with Kiev's position”. However, he points out that “a quick ceasefire agreement remains unlikely” despite US-led efforts, as both Russia and Ukraine “continue to seek more advantageous positions, which are unacceptable to the other side”.

The fundamental divergences remain unchanged. Russia is demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all of Donbas, including the city of Donetsk, and guarantees that NATO will not expand eastward. Ukraine rejects ceding territories that Moscow has failed to control militarily and insists on firm and lasting security guarantees.

In this context, Washington's efforts to mediate a compromise have acquired, according to The Washington Post, the appearance of a “diplomatic Groundhog Day”: each new wave of negotiations seems to run into Moscow's refusal to give up its maximalist demands.

Tatiana Stanovaia, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, believes that another attempt by Witkoff to persuade Putin to accept a deal — and thereby hand Donald Trump a possible diplomatic victory — risks the same result as the previous two. However, she suggests that recent developments on the front could influence the parties' positions.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed concern that, following the Moscow talks, the Russian side could come back with a counterproposal that Witkoff “would present as a very good deal,” even if it would not be to Ukraine's advantage.