Why Europe wants Ukraine to reconcile with the US and how the West sees the path to peace

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's attempt to negotiate with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, ended in an emotional on-air argument, even leading to threats of halting US military aid to Ukraine. This became last week’s major international political event.

Amid this dispute, the vast majority of European leaders reaffirmed and even pledged to increase their support for Ukraine.

But tweets alone are not enough. Specific actions are needed. These were precisely the focus of discussions among key European leaders during their Sunday meeting in London.

Read more about how Europe envisions peace negotiations for Ukraine and how its position differs from that of the US in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda editor – Europe’s plan for Ukraine: what was promised to Zelenskyy in London amid US pressure.

A Franco-British proposal outlining a path to peace, presented as a non-paper (an informal document meant for discussion), became the foundation of the London talks.

While the document was not shared with the media, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed key elements in an interview with Le Figaro while en route to London.

One of the central points in the UK-France plan is a partial ceasefire, requiring Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on each other "in the air, at sea, and on energy infrastructure."

This means that Russia would have to stop missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s rear areas. Ukraine would have to cease drone attacks on Russia, including strikes on Russian energy facilities. Both sides would stop using frontline aviation. However, ground combat, artillery use, and likely FPV drone warfare would remain unrestricted.

French officials argue that such a limited ceasefire would be time-bound and enforceable with a proposed duration of one month. During this period, Ukraine and Russia, with mediation from the US and European states, would attempt to reach a peace deal that respects Ukraine’s interests and red lines, including security guarantees.

Yet on Monday, the UK government admitted that the partial ceasefire proposal was not approved during the summit, without clarifying who blocked it.

Overall, European and American perspectives on "peace" are similar in their broad approach.

Neither the US nor Europe currently has a finalised "peace plan," meaning a concrete agreement that would end Russia’s aggression. Instead, both have a process in mind that, they believe, could initiate negotiations with Russia.

The proposed steps are: a significant reduction in combat intensity and attacks; the beginning of Ukraine-Russia talks, including through intermediaries; the signing of a mutually agreed-upon peace treaty.

However, the extent of Ukrainian concessions acceptable to each side differs fundamentally.

From Washington’s perspective, the Trump administration appears willing to accept a scenario in which Ukraine is the only party making concessions, while expecting Russia to compromise on other fronts, such as its geopolitical stance toward China.

Europe’s stance is fundamentally different: any peace plan must respect Ukraine’s red lines.

For Europeans, Ukraine’s security is part of their own security.

According to European Pravda’s sources, there is growing recognition in European capitals that a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is essential, not just for Ukraine, but for Europe itself.

However, American involvement is a key condition for such a mission.

A crucial element is US guarantee to join a collective response if Russian forces attack peacekeepers from the UK, France, or other countries physically present in Ukraine.

This is precisely why Europe is keen on restoring Ukraine-US cooperation.