On Wednesday, it was reported that the U.S. and Russia had prepared a new framework peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. It would require significant concessions from Ukraine, including giving up territory it still controls and dramatically cutting the size of its military, the BBC wrote. Neither Washington nor Moscow has officially confirmed the plan.

"If the world accepts that borders can be changed by force or that Russia has some sort of imperial rights beyond its internationally recognized borders, then the situation for us becomes far more dire than the one that has allowed Estonia's sovereignty and independence to be secured within the current international framework," Vseviov told "Vikerraadio" on Thursday morning.

"In recent hours, all kinds of stories have appeared in the press. Are they speculation? Are they in some way the visible tip of an iceberg hiding something else going on somewhere? That's exactly what we're actively working to find out," he said.

"As for the United States, the most appropriate party to comment on what Americans want or are pursuing is, of course, America itself. It's not my place to put words in their mouth. Naturally, we are in communication with the Americans and also speaking very actively with the Europeans. I believe that what has appeared in the newspaper, or elements of it, does not reflect any kind of coherent thinking or proposal. I also know with certainty that at least some elements reported in the article do reflect strategic thinking, but not America's. They reflect Russia's," Vseviov commented.

According to Vseviov, Russia's demands have not changed. "We've consistently made this clear to our allies behind closed doors and also publicly. What Putin went to war for is what he still wants to achieve. And that's not just part of Ukraine — it's all of Ukraine, though it's being packaged under different labels. Sometimes it's presented as a demand for elements of Ukraine's sovereignty, other times for elements of its territorial integrity, but the real goal is, of course, the whole of Ukraine. And on that front, the Kremlin hasn't made any concessions. That's why there's no point in talking about peace negotiations that are supposedly aiming for some kind of compromise. At best, what's happening today is just another attempt to formally write down each side's demands. Moscow demands that Ukraine not exist and Ukraine demands the right to exist, and I don't see any way those two positions can be reconciled through compromise," Vseviov said.

"When we talk about Ukraine supposedly 'gifting' territory to Russia — territory that's not even under Russian military control — or 'gifting' its sovereignty, which in plain terms would mean giving up its own state, then it's clear the Ukrainian people will naturally resist that," he added.

Kellogg's departure will not change US policy

News agency Reuters also reported that Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, will step down in January 2026. The agency noted that Kellogg's departure would mean the loss of a key defender of Ukrainian interests within a Trump administration. Kellogg has also been more outspoken than other Trump officials in condemning Russia's attacks on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.

According to Vseviov, no single individual wields enough influence for their arrival or departure to immediately shift the policy of a major power. "The United States is led by the president of the United States. Of course, the president has the authority to change foreign policy, even reverse it 180 degrees if necessary. Everyone else works under the president's authority, with the president's mandate. They may push for some nuanced differences, but ultimately, they don't set the policy. Policy is set by the person who leads the country. In the U.S., foreign policy is driven by a president with relatively broad constitutional powers," Vseviov said.

"What's worth remembering from time to time — and I think now is one of those times — is that speaking about Ukraine without involving Ukrainians is not only wrong or unfair, it's also impossible. Just as talking about Europe without Europeans is also impossible," Vseviov emphasized.

He added that the outcome of the war in Ukraine will also define Europe's security architecture and that cannot be determined without Europeans at the table.

"As for claims that some sort of talks happened quickly somewhere and someone agreed to something or rejected something — I don't actually believe that. Even if there are meetings, and we know there are, those are part of the ongoing work of diplomats and officials. Discussions are constantly taking place, testing the boundaries of what might or might not be acceptable. But the idea that an agreement was struck yesterday and rejected today — I just don't buy it. These are too fundamental of issues to be interpreted that way," said Vseviov.

"Every time it feels like things are heating up too much, I recommend taking a breath before diving in. Wait a moment. Don't forget that Europe also has a say in this and then focus on what's within our control," he added.

"In this context, I think it's also worth recalling what our peace plan is. We've been promoting this plan since the beginning of the war. Broadly speaking, the West has been acting according to this plan. It has one major advantage over all the others: it's simple and logical. It contains just two points. First, increase the cost of aggression for the aggressor. Second, support the victim in every possible way, both materially and with the hope that they can one day become a normal European country. That means enjoying the same prosperity, security and stability that are the norm in places like Poland, Romania and here in Estonia. That strategy remains viable and realistic. Acting on those two principles, it's possible to pressure Russia into pulling back within its internationally recognized borders," Vseviov said.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!