How should Britain lead the European response to America’s ‘peace plan’?
The Big Ask | No. 47.2025
In a push to bring an end to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump, President of the United States (US), announced a new 28-point ‘peace plan’ last week. The original plan, details of which were leaked to the media, contained measures that Kyiv and its allies across Europe deemed as too favourable to the Kremlin. However, following talks between representatives from Ukraine, the US and key European partners – including the United Kingdom (UK), France and Germany – which took place on 23rd November in Geneva, an alternative version is starting to emerge.
While negotiations continue, it is clear that Ukraine’s European partners wish to secure conditions for peace that are more favourable to Kyiv and Europe’s collective security. These high stakes form the basis for this week’s Big Ask, in which we asked five experts: How should Britain lead the European response to America’s ‘peace plan’?
Senior Research Fellow, Polish Institute of International Affairs, and Senior Lecturer, Warsaw School of Economics (SGH)
Early drafts of the 28-point ‘peace plan’ mirror Russian preferences and risk forcing Ukraine into a settlement which freezes the conflict on Russia’s terms, without real safeguards for peace. From a Polish perspective, it emboldens Russia and undermines the foundations of European security.
As such, the UK should first use its special relationship with the US, and the privileged communication channels which it grants, to convince the Trump administration that Russia’s aims concern not territorial gains, but Ukraine’s sovereign status, and, more broadly, the European security order.
Second, Britain should strengthen Europe’s resolve around three fundamental points of any future settlement: no recognition of Russian territorial gains achieved by force; no deal negotiated over Ukraine’s head; and no settlement which leaves Ukraine unable to defend itself.
Third, the UK should work closely with Poland and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) frontline states to coordinate a credible alternative to a rushed American-Russian bargain. This means accelerating European defence production, locking in multiyear support, tightening enforcement of the already introduced sanctions and preparing additional ones if Russia weaponises the talks.
Finally, Britain should convey to American leaders that durable peace requires acceptance in Ukraine and Poland, not just in the US and Russia. Acting as both connector and brake, it can help to steer Europe towards a peace which strengthens long-term security.
Executive Editor, Internationale Politik Quarterly and Internationale Politik
Russian attempts – reportedly helped along by a US special envoy – to split NATO, weaken Ukraine and deeply impair the security of the European continent need to be countered forcefully. For the states of Europe and the European Union (EU), this is an all hands on deck task.
The European Three (E3) – the UK, France and Germany – are playing the key role for now, coordinating the European response and providing ‘diplomatic muscle’. However, at this crucial moment, when some in the Trump administration are playing Russian roulette with European security, Britain has a special role to play.
Mentioning the ‘special’ relationship between the UK and US may bring ironic smiles to many faces, but it is still there; and His Majesty’s (HM) Government should make maximum use of it. Britain is in the best position of all to persuade America that this is not the time to cut a bad deal and hand Russia an unprecedented victory.
Some around Trump may try to tempt him to retreat officially from strategic globalism and concentrate on hemispheric defence, ‘waging war’ against alleged drug smugglers and ‘migration’ in a debatably dystopian replay of Monroe Doctrine. But this is far from the majority view in Washington, and indeed the American nation. Republican voters are behind Ukraine’s defensive fight for independence, freedom and democracy to a remarkable degree; if anything, the numbers have risen in recent months.
As A. Wess Mitchell, a former US diplomat, wrote in 2024, ‘with Europe on its side, the United States is a Eurasian power; without Europe, it is mostly a hemispheric potentate on the margins of the world.’ Britain should remind its American allies of that fact – it has the best chance to be heard.
International Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Assistant Professor of International Relations, University of Waterloo (Canada)
The fact that the UK had to lead a European response is itself a problem. Although Britain is exceptional for having partnered with Ukraine in various initiatives even before 2022, the unfortunate fact is that most European countries have been reactive in how they have managed their approach towards Ukraine and, for that matter, Russia’s full-scale invasion. They have failed collectively to articulate and to resource a clear strategy that would support their stated interest for Ukraine to restore its territorial integrity and to resist Russian military aggression as effectively as possible.
Besides allowing Russia to continue inflicting pain on Ukraine for several very challenging years, this failure has given the space for the Trump administration to push for a settlement on terms which would be more favourable for Russia than might have been the case before. HM Government has reacted well to Washington’s 28-point peace proposal by leading the European counterproposal, softening those aspects that were most detrimental to Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the UK and the Coalition of the Willing must stop reacting: they should proactively define and support a positive, workable vision for peace which reinforces Ukrainian sovereignty and boosts European security.
Doctoral Fellow and PhD Candidate, University of Surrey
The phrase ‘keep calm and carry on’ is often overused, but in this discussion, it feels quietly relevant. Throughout the chaos of the Russian-led Witkoff plan and the all-too-familiar berating of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, the reality of Russian aggression on the ground continues, both for those in the cities, and even worse for those under Russian occupation.
Britain should attempt to be the leader in cutting through this noise, and continuing to support Ukraine militarily, economically and politically. This will help Ukraine to weather these storms of forced negotiations and improve its position upon the battlefield.
European nations have let themselves become sidelined in these negotiations, with the UK amongst them. Offering real alternatives to the ‘peace plan’ with well laid out Ukrainian demands (i.e., full restoration of territory, recompensation and arrest of known Russian war criminals) is a way to shift the Overton window of negotiations.
Similarly, continuing discussions over the Coalition of the Willing remains essential, and moving beyond theoretics to commitment could be a game changer for Europe. Outrightly rejecting Russia’s position of no European troops on the ground is important, and for Ukraine to be secure in its negotiations – as well as for the US to consider Europe a real ally worth listening to – public discussions over force generation must begin.
For this to be Ukraine’s peace, Britain and its European allies and partners should continue to support Ukraine in every way possible. Doing so should steadfastly be their only focus. To distract with negotiations, or to consider it a ‘done deal’, will be the biggest disservice to Ukraine. Russia cannot be allowed to win at the negotiating table, when it has lost in nearly every other imaginable way since its full-scale invasion began.
Senior Adviser for Geopolitics, Centre for Risk Studies, and Convenor, Geopolitical Risk Analysis Study Group, University of Cambridge
In my view, the UK should keep calm and carry on.
The draft proposal is broadly acceptable. Certainly, it represents less than a Ukrainian victory – the country de facto loses 20% of its territory and is precluded from joining NATO. However, the proposal also falls far short of a Russian victory.
The Kremlin’s objective back in February 2022 was to end Ukraine’s quest for national independence, and bring it back within the Russian sphere of influence. Against that measure, the proposal constitutes a failure for Russia, for which the evidence is the backlash to it inside the country. 80% of Ukraine will emerge more independent than before, with an American security guarantee, a pathway to greater integration with the EU, and a substantial reconstruction fund.
Nevertheless, Britain, alongside its European peers, is right to push for a better deal while the opportunity exists, most notably concerning the strength of the security guarantee and the future size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Success is not guaranteed, but that is no reason not to try.
One other point: Europeans are making an issue of the third article of the proposal, which states that Russia will not invade its neighbours. However, if the proposal stands, I see little risk of this given Russia will be preoccupied with the task of trying to bring Ukraine into its sphere of influence for years to come. The prospect of Russia opening a new front, for example in the Baltic states, seems remote.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?
Dr Less fails to recognise that giving Russia any territory beyond the borders of the Russian Federation is wrong. Russia brutally attacked a nation that was focused on building a Western-style democratic government, having shaken the remnants of the USSR harm from its nation. The scale of Russian debauched behaviour was, and remains, against all common basic human standards with lies, deceit and false historical points of fact. Ukraine deserves more. The USA under the current POTUS has little time for reality, historical issues and grievances. Russia is no different to the USSR under the current and likely future leadership. Europe must stand strong to counter Russian brutality and constancy of destruction as if they alone are allowed to wage the equivalent of total war - it is morally wrong, repugnant and depraved to accept a halfway point to satisfy any outsider's ego.
There is no point in Britain attempting to speak for Europe . They are not our , or Americas friends - they are our neighbours and Americas partners in NATO . We have our channels to America and we should cherish these and use them to provide what friendly support and constructive criticism we can .