Do you now have a clear understanding of what exactly the Americans are offering? Is it the 28-point peace plan? Is it a peace plan endorsed by Trump? Is it a Russian wish list?

A 28-point peace plan was leaked, which by now has been trimmed down to 19 points and is being closely guarded. All the points relating to Europe have been removed, which is certainly a positive development. But as far as I know, not a single point in the plan imposes any obligations on Russia.

If we look at the situation, it's clear that there is one aggressor and one victim. In order to stop Russia from continuing its aggression, from killing and from attacking anyone else, we first and foremost need to impose obligations on Russia.

It's important to understand why the Russians are now putting on a friendly face for the Americans, pretending they are once again open to peace negotiations. The reason is that they're actually in a bad position. Economically, things are not going well for them and they haven't made much progress on the battlefield either. They want to create the impression and distort the picture that everyone else is in a hurry and they are not. But that's simply not true.

We must stay focused on ensuring that this war ends with lasting peace. For that to happen, Russia has to take on responsibilities or at the very least, honor the obligations it has already committed to under international treaties. There are at least 20 such preexisting agreements.

Have you seen anything specific or have the Americans presented you with something concrete? Do we now have a more detailed or specific version that you've also seen?

We're in constant contact with the Ukrainians. They're under a great deal of pressure, of course, but at least I personally have not seen the final version.

Is this really being discussed in such a way that the Americans propose certain points, the Ukrainians propose theirs and the Europeans contribute their own? Are we really talking about that initial proposal — adding, removing or adjusting certain points within the framework of the plan that was offered?

That's exactly what I've pointed out as well — if it has leaked that this is essentially the Russians' plan, then we can't possibly use that as a foundation to build on. We need to have a concrete discussion about what obligations Russia will take on.

Tomorrow we have a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council with the foreign ministers, where we'll be discussing what obligations we would want to see placed on Russia in this agreement. This is also in the Americans' interest — to prevent Russia from attacking anyone else again. But as I've said, there have already been 20, more than 20, international agreements with Russia.

We should first obtain a commitment from them that they will abide by the agreements they've already signed. That would provide at least some assurance that the peace will be lasting.

You mentioned that the points do not cover Europe. Do we have any assurance that if there's an attempt to revisit those, the Americans will first discuss them with us? That Europe won't be caught off guard?

Well, even the points concerning Ukraine directly affect Europe. If those points make it easier for Russia to pressure Ukraine, then it's clear that Ukraine is weakened and Russia strengthened. That, in turn, increases the risk of further aggression.

Of course, we're in constant contact with our U.S. counterparts at various levels. But as everyone always says, in the end, it's President Trump who makes the final decision.

Why don't we just say a clear "no"? It's clearly a plan that leans too far in Russia's favor for us in Europe to accept it. Wouldn't it be better to just tell the Americans right away: "No, let's not even discuss this"?

Well, the Americans are trying to handle this without the Europeans involved.

So is it more reasonable to try to go along with their approach just to stay at the table?

In order for this plan to be truly viable, the Europeans have to agree to it. We must, of course, keep a clear-eyed view and constantly keep it on the agenda that we need Russia to take on some obligations.

Because Ukraine hasn't attacked anyone. So why place limits on the Ukrainian army when Ukraine hasn't initiated any aggression?

I had someone list for me all the wars and acts of aggression that Russia has carried out in the 20th and 21st centuries. I counted 19 countries that Russia has attacked. Thirty-three wars or military actions they've launched against neighboring states and also more distant countries. Not a single one of those countries has ever attacked Russia.

We need to keep our focus on the obligations Russia must take on in order for there to be lasting peace.

Has Europe's strategy changed? Is it still maximum pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine or are negotiations also touching on, for example, easing sanctions? What is Europe's peace plan?

Right now, we're sticking exactly to the same line: supporting Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia, because Russia is the one that started this war.

Russia wants to create the impression that everyone else is in a hurry while they have all the time in the world. That's not true. We need to seize this moment, because Russia is actually in a difficult position when it comes to financing the war. That means we must move forward with using frozen Russian assets. That's what they're afraid of.

The reason they're putting on a friendly face now is precisely because they want someone to say, "Let's not discuss this right now, the situation has changed." But it hasn't changed.

We need to help Ukraine get through these difficult times and we must keep up the pressure on Russia with every tool we have, so that this war truly ends and we achieve lasting peace.

--

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