HALIFAX, Nova Scotia — As details about a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine attributed to the Trump administration have emerged, European defense leaders and US lawmakers gathered in Nova Scotia with a clear message: The proposed deal is straight out of the Russian playbook and hamstrings NATO.
“It’s difficult to say that it is a peace plan. [Hopefully it] is a proposition for something to negotiate,” Estonia’s Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur told Breaking Defense today.
Earlier this week, details began emerging about US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll’s trip to Ukraine, during which he delivered Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy what has been described as the White House’s plan to end the military conflict with Russia. With it, US President Donald Trump offered up a Thanksgiving deadline for Zelenskyy to decide, with reports and comments from Zelenskyy himself indicating that not doing so could turn off the flow of US weapons to Kyiv and intelligence sharing.
“He’ll have to like it, and if he doesn’t like it, then you know, they should just keep fighting, I guess,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday. “At some point, he’s going to have to accept something.”
But after the plan was leaked, causing acute worry in European capitals and prompting Zelenskyy to record a video explaining the dire situation to his citizens, today lawmakers revealed that the proposal may not have been drafted by the US at all.
“What I can share with you is what we received today from [Secretary of State Marco Rubio], and what he told us, was that this was not the American proposal,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said during a panel here. “This was a proposal which was received by someone who has [been] identified and they believe to be representing Russia in this proposal.”
Rounds said it was unclear if the proposal received by US officials had since been modified before it was presented to the Ukrainians.
“It was released, apparently by the entity that had originally discussed it with us, representatives. But to be clear — and our concern was that there be any misunderstanding that this was a United States proposal. It is not,” Rounds said.
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said he too spoke to Rubio, who he said reiterated that the plan was not the administration’s position but is “essentially a wish list of the Russians that is now being presented to the Europeans and the Ukrainians.”
Despite Trump’s deadline, Rounds and King each expressed some optimism that the proposal was under ongoing negotiation, with King saying it was “encouraging” that the administration is in “close consultation” with the Ukrainians and the Europeans.
Spokespeople for the State Department and the White House, where Rubio is also national security advisor to Trump, did not immediately respond to after-hours requests for comment today.
Regardless of where the plan came from, senior European leaders are taking it seriously, and voicing strong criticism. Prior to the lawmakers’ panel, Gen. Onno Eichelsheim, the top general for the Netherlands, told Breaking Defense that while discussions on how to end the war between the two nations are “always good,” the presentation of a take-it-or-leave-it deal arranged without input from the continent is the wrong approach.
“I think the basis is wrong on what’s now on the table, because it’s not being set up with Ukraine or the European countries, and I don’t think that’s the best place to start with,” Eichelsheim said. “Russia can stop this immediately. They are the aggressor. So stop it. Withdraw. And, you have your peace.”
Italian Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, took a more political tone, saying he is hopeful the US plan is just an avenue to “break the silence” and a “starting point” for continued negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, and other stakeholders including other European nations.
RELATED: Ticking clock: Northern NATO defense chiefs see ever-closing ‘window’ to prepare for Russia
None of the three European defense officials said they have actually seen the peace plan, just media reports (several of which have posted what appears to be the full document). But if Zelenskyy signs the deal as is, it would bar Ukraine from joining NATO and, Eichelsheim estimated, would offer Moscow a window to reconstitute its military to potentially strike allied territory within 18 to 24 months. Dragone, for his part, estimated that window could be within three to five years.
If Zelenskyy doesn’t sign and the US halts all weapons sales or deliveries for Ukraine and stops intel sharing, NATO countries will also be left scrambling to fill in that vacuum. But, Dragone stressed, there is simply no way for Europe to match everything that would go missing overnight.
“They will answer the call, and they will do more and more,” he told Breaking Defense. “[But] will they be able to match what was the operational output from the United States? I can tell you, no.
“But we will do our best, and we will just keep on being side by side with Ukraine, not leaving it alone,” Dragone added.
Bipartisan Support For Ukraine
Earlier in the day American lawmakers on both sides of the aisle echoed concerns about the US plan, with several referring to a blistering social media rebuke from Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader and current defense appropriations chairman, in which he said Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to play Trump “for a fool.”
On stage this morning, Sen. Thomas Tillis, R-N.C., said he was only disappointed that McConnell didn’t go far enough.
“I don’t think it was forceful enough,” Tillis said. “Vladimir Putin is a murderer, a rapist and an assassin. We should not do anything that makes him feel like he has a win here. Honestly, I think what Mitch said was short of what should be said.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., also took to the stage blasting the plan that “seems to … [have] been written by Russia about Ukraine,” and asserting that she too hopes it is just the beginning step toward a negotiation with European partners who, if the US withdraws support, will be tasked with offering up more materiel and funding.
