Us And European Leaders Slam Ukraine Peace Plan As Non-Starter In Halifax Summit

European defense leaders and US lawmakers have gathered in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to express skepticism over the Ukrainian “peace plan” attributed to the Trump administration. The proposal, which includes 28 points for ending the military conflict with Russia, has been met with widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle.

According to reports, details about the plan emerged during US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll’s trip to Ukraine, where he delivered a message from President Donald Trump, offering a Thanksgiving deadline for Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy to decide. The plan is said to include conditions that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and offer Moscow a window to reconstitute its military within 18-24 months if signed.

Estonia’s Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur described the proposal as “difficult to say that it is a peace plan” and hoped that it was only a starting point for negotiations. General Onno Eichelsheim from the Netherlands, and Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of the NATO Military Committee, have taken a more critical stance.

The proposal has been met with skepticism due to its perceived similarities to the Russian playbook, which European leaders believe is an attempt to hamstrings NATO. US lawmakers, including Sen. Mike Rounds and Sen. Angus King, expressed concerns that the plan was not drafted by the US but was instead received from representatives believed to be representing Russia.

Sen. Rounds stated that the proposal had been released by the entity that originally discussed it with them, but emphasized that it was not a US proposal. He also noted that the administration has consistently maintained that the plan was “authored” by the US, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.

However, Rubio and the White House refuted the lawmakers’ characterization, stating that the peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It was based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.

Senior administration officials have defended the plan, saying that it has always been a hopeful start to continued negotiations, and eventually the signing of a final peace agreement once and for all. However, European leaders remain unconvinced, citing concerns over the proposal’s perceived flaws and the lack of consultation with the continent.

Gen. Eichelsheim emphasized that discussions on ending the war between Ukraine and Russia should be set up with Ukraine or the European countries, rather than being imposed without their input. Italian Admiral Dragone took a more nuanced approach, stating that he is hopeful the US plan is just an avenue to “break the silence” and a “starting point” for continued negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow.

However, he also warned that if the proposal were signed as is, it would offer Russia a significant window to reconstitute its military. The criticism from European defense leaders has been echoed by US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Thomas Tillis described Sen. Mitch McConnell’s initial statement as “disappointed” but said he wished McConnell had gone further in condemning the proposal.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, also spoke out against the plan, stating that it seems to have been written by Russia about Ukraine and emphasizing her hope that it is just the beginning step toward a negotiation with European partners who would be tasked with offering more materiel and funding if the US withdraws its support.

The situation has raised concerns among NATO countries, particularly in light of the proposal’s potential implications for the alliance. As one senior administration official noted, if Zelenskyy signs the deal as is, it would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and leave the continent scrambling to fill the vacuum left by US support.

However, Dragone emphasized that NATO countries will do their best to support Ukraine and remain side by side with them. He also stressed that while Europe may not be able to match everything that the US offers, they will continue to provide aid and assistance in other ways.

The situation highlights the complexities of international negotiations and the challenges faced by leaders in finding a peaceful resolution to conflicts. As the debate over the Ukrainian “peace plan” continues, it remains to be seen whether the proposal can be revised or modified to address the concerns of European defense leaders and US lawmakers alike.

In the meantime, the international community will continue to watch developments in Ukraine with great interest, as the fate of the peace plan and the future of NATO hang in the balance. The next few days will be crucial in determining whether the proposal can be salvaged or if it will be revised to address the concerns of all parties involved.

The fate of Ukraine and the future of NATO will depend on the ability of leaders to put aside their differences and work towards a common goal: peace. As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the next few days will be crucial in determining whether the proposal can be salvaged or if it will be revised to address the concerns of all parties involved.

The “peace plan” has been met with widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle, and its fate remains uncertain. The international community must come together to find a solution that works for everyone involved, rather than creating new problems or exacerbating existing tensions.

In the end, it will be up to leaders to find a way forward that addresses the concerns of all parties involved and brings an end to the conflict in Ukraine.