Despite threats from U.S. President Donald Trump to leave Ukraine and the war to its own devices, however, such an outcome is unlikely, Raik added. This is because Trump still wants to be seen as the peacemaker here, she told "Ukraina stuudio."

A 28-point peace plan reached the public this week, and it reads more like a capitulation document, or a list of Russian demands. What do we make of it more generally, and to what extent can we sense here that this is now some kind of final American position and offer? You can also sense a kind of distancing, but perhaps somewhere there is a cleaner draft of the agreement, and this is but one version. How do you see this document at all?

I think no one expected, not even the Russians, that this peace plan, in this form, will become the war's final outcome. As of now, it is more of a Russian attempt to test how far they can succeed in using the U.S. as leverage to pressure Ukraine with. It is clear that Trump still wants to bring the war in Ukraine to an end; to attain a peace, with him wishing to play the peacemaker. He thinks Ukraine has to make significant concessions. The talks are still ongoing about how large these concessions might ultimately be, but this much is clear: Ukraine is not capitulating, Ukraine is not collapsing, and so they cannot in any way approve such a peace plan. The Ukrainian people would not accept it, and the U.S. likely does not await a hundred percent agreement with these conditions either. It will become clear during the next negotiations how these positions evolve.

If Russia is as it were testing, and this document reflects that, then what does that reveal about the U.S. administration? What world view does it reflect where they still brought something like this to the public?

On the U.S. side, there is quite a lot of confusion. It seems that even within the administration various people still have various positions, but it is clear that for Trump, it is no problem if the U.S. and Russia agree between themselves and impose on Ukraine any deal that is very bad from Ukraine's perspective, and which means major concessions. We are in an era of cynical realpolitik, so the question now is how much Europe, together with Ukraine, can assert itself and stand up for itself.

Let's talk a little, point by point, about what the document which reached the public contains, and why all these points are problematic. First, the territories: Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be de facto Russian territory, while Ukraine would have to gift them yet another part of its territory that is currently not under Russian control at all.

The issue of territories is in some sense not the primary one. I would say that the most important aspect of this peace plan is that it for sure means the end of Ukraine's sovereignty. It also means that Ukraine would no longer be capable of defending itself — not only because limits would be placed on its military, but perhaps even more because Russia demands those additional territories, precisely the areas where Ukraine's defensive structures are currently set up. If Ukraine had to retreat from that point, it would be very difficult to defend the rest of its territory, so the danger that renewed Russia attacks would continue to grow.

In addition, the current version is implanted with the idea that Russia's frozen assets would be used for Ukraine's reconstruction, but in an American-led enterprise from which America profits. Sanctions would be lifted from Russia step by step, then Russia would be expected back at the G8 table. This feels like a business deal between two major countries.

This demonstrated that America and Russia still want to normalize their bilateral relations. As for the frozen assets, this is a particularly painful point from a European perspective, as Europe has not yet managed to make its own decisions to use the frozen assets located in Europe, for Ukraine. Now a peace plan is on the table that foresees that essentially it is down to the U.S. and to Russia to decide how those assets are to be utilized. They would be utilized partly for Ukraine's benefit, but in any case in a form where the U.S. and Russia profit from this.

What is Ukraine to do in a situation like this? Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said that the choice is between dignity and losing a key ally. What is that choice then, and how big a hole would be left in Ukraine's defenses if the Americans turned their back?

For a start, I would say that one of Russia's miscalculations on Ukraine — one of many — is that they think Zelenskyy is the main hurdle to reaching peace on Russia's terms. Although Zelenskyy is at present in a very difficult domestic political position due to a corruption scandal, this does not make it more likely that he would approve a peace agreement which was totally unacceptable from Ukrainian society's point of view. Zelenskyy certainly cannot go along with it, and he really did formulate the choice as one between Ukraine's dignity and sovereignty or sacrificing relations with its most important partner, indicating that Ukraine will in any case choose dignity and sovereignty.

If we now imagine whether the U.S. would really let the process go so far that Ukraine, with European support, says it cannot sign this agreement and the U.S. responds by ending all its support totally, including intel sharing, then the war would go on, and Trump would not achieve the peace he presumably genuinely desires. I do not consider it very realistic that it will go that way — where the U.S. would pull back completely and the war simply continue with Europe's support.

How much has the corruption scandal weakened Zelenskyy; perhaps European allies are also expecting some steps from him? For example, replacing some officials, so that trust in the system is regained.

In internal politics and from Ukrainian society's viewpoint, Zelenskyy's position is certainly weaker than it was. Particularly under pressure is his closest adviser, Andriy Yermak, who nevertheless is today, for example, the person who, as Ukraine's representative, is negotiating with European and US counterparts. There is pressure both from within Ukraine and from European partners to replace some individuals and take new decisive steps to limit corruption. I believe Zelensky certainly wants to show he is ready to take those steps. But I think that the fact that such large corruption cases have come out publicly will not stop Europe's desire to support Ukraine, because Europe understands very well that if it stopped supporting Ukraine, the consequences for all of Europe's security would be catastrophic.

What should the Europeans do now in this situation, and what can Europe do? Europe has done a lot so far, but still not as much as it could have done. Is this now the moment when some next step must be taken, or is that not something to hope for?

Sadly we have been in this position repeatedly in recent years, where once again there is some negative development from Ukraine's perspective, and again Europe is forced to look in the mirror and admit it has not done enough. In recent months the Baltic states, Germany and perhaps some other Northern European states have indeed significantly boosted their support to Ukraine and increased their investments in defense, but this has not been a joint effort of all Europe. Far from it. One main reason why the U.S. simply cast Europe aside this week is that Europe is weak and not sufficiently unified. Now, again the question is whether Europe can pull itself together and give very concrete signals that support for Ukraine will be increased.

Europe come what may will help Ukraine enough for Ukraine to keep fighting, and not be forced to capitulate or approve any agreement that would mean the end of Ukraine as a sovereign state. Europe's support is absolutely indispensable on this. In addition, Europe is now trying to influence this diplomatic process, and we will see how much it succeeds and how willing the U.S. is this time to listen to Europe's and Ukraine's positions. It is clear that if the U.S. imagines it can simply roll over Ukraine and all of Europe, this will not bring any peace. This would lead to an outcome that would show Trump as actually weak and show that Russia can dictate its conditions to the U.S.

What can Europe do to show that we will not let ourselves be railroaded over?

Additional weapons aid and decisions on how Ukraine will be supported overall going forward. We are currently in a situation where in Europe it is not clear what European funds will go to support Ukraine next year. But that money is not coming from anywhere else. The U.S. will certainly not be providing any financial support. Europe has neither managed to agree on the use of frozen assets, nor found any other solution so far. This must now be found as quickly as possible.

--

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