Transforming the American “peace plan” into an option acceptable to Ukraine and its European partners will be a difficult diplomatic task, writes the Financial Times. The publication singled out several points that cause the most controversy — from the issue of territories to security guarantees and amnesty.
Should Ukraine give up Donetsk?
One of the most pressing issues, the FT calls Ukraine's potential relinquishment of some of the occupied territories. Although this item is numbered 22d in the document, it could well be the first on the list of problems.
The handover of currently occupied Donetsk would mean that Russia would gain what it has been unable to achieve militarily since 2014. Ukraine would risk losing its stronghold belt of Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostyantynivka. For tens of thousands of people, this would mean the forced displacement of their homes.
The US plan calls for recognizing these territories as "de facto Russian." At first glance, this is softer than legal recognition, but internationalist Mark Weller of Chatham House notes that the wording "de facto Russia" is more advantageous to the Kremlin than simply "under de facto Russian control."
What will be the security guarantees for Kyiv?
The document mentions “reliable security guarantees,” but without specifics. At the same time, it is precisely the vague promises that have already proven fatal: the Budapest Memorandum did not prevent either the annexation of Crimea in 2014 or the full-scale invasion in 2022.
Any guarantees that do not contain clear mechanisms for the West's response will be regarded by Kyiv as unacceptable and ineffective.
Who will get the frozen Russian assets?
The American plan effectively halts the European initiative to create a 140 billion euro “reparations loan” from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets.
For Ukraine, even if an agreement is reached, budgetary support and army modernization will remain critical. Most EU capitals agree that the reparations mechanism is the most effective and financially sound.
Is a general amnesty needed?
The US plan includes a provision for a general amnesty for all participants in the conflict and the waiver of legal claims. For Ukrainian society, which has experienced mass killings, destruction, deportation of children, and war crimes, such an “amnesty” would seem morally unacceptable.
Nobel laureate Oleksandra Matviychuk called this the “main disappointment” in the proposed document. In addition, a complete waiver of legal claims would effectively make an EU reparations loan impossible, notes lawyer Yulia Ziskina.
Should the size of the Ukrainian army be limited?
Many in Europe consider the limitation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to 600,000 people to be a direct interference in Ukraine's sovereignty. EU leaders are convinced that a strong army is the continent's best defense against new Russian aggression.
Even a reduction of one-third from the current size would leave Ukraine one of the most powerful armies in Europe. But the military warns that any artificial reduction in defense potential would create the prerequisites for a new Russian offensive.
Ukrainian Armed Forces spokesman Oleksandr Solonko said: “This is direct preparation for a new invasion and weakening of Ukraine.”
