The newly discussed European counter-proposal for ending the war in Ukraine introduces a clause that has already sparked intense debate: territorial negotiations should begin from the current line of control. At first glance, this may appear to be a pragmatic baseline—an attempt to anchor talks in the reality on the ground. Yet, for Ukraine, this clause is arguably the most perilous element of the entire framework. Far from freezing the conflict and opening a path toward a sustainable peace, it may instead incentivize Russia to accelerate its offensive operations precisely during the weeks when diplomacy is supposedly taking shape. In essence, it risks turning the negotiation process itself into a strategic weapon.
If the earlier Trump-aligned peace plan controversially proposed ceding specific territories to Russia as part of a settlement, the European version may prove even more dangerous in practice. By stating that talks should begin from whatever land Russia holds at the moment negotiations formally open, the Europeans have effectively created a window of opportunity—indeed, a reward—for rapid territorial advances. This approach does not simply freeze the status quo; it encourages its violent expansion. The battlefield becomes the bargaining table, and each additional town or village captured becomes a token of leverage. For a defending nation already stretched to its limits, this is a catastrophic strategic disadvantage.
Such a clause puts Ukraine in an impossible position. It faces the dual risk of deeper territorial loss and the destruction of key infrastructure and cities that still remain under its control. As Russia pushes to improve its negotiating position, Ukraine becomes the arena on which this "race to talks" is fought. Every day of intensified combat translates into new human and material devastation—not only for soldiers on the front lines but for civilians caught in the path of artillery, missiles, and occupation.
From a humanitarian perspective, the proposal is equally troubling. It disregards the human cost of incentivizing further offensives. By allowing the line of control to determine the starting point for negotiations, European policymakers risk perpetuating a dynamic in which entire communities are uprooted or destroyed before diplomats even sit down at the table. In effect, this approach suggests that territory is negotiable only after it has been forcibly taken—an implicit endorsement of the very logic of aggression that Europe has spent decades claiming to oppose.
Politically, this clause also carries grave implications for Ukraine's internal stability. President Volodymyr Zelensky, already navigating a complex domestic landscape, would face enormous pressure if forced to negotiate from a position of substantial territorial loss. Nationalist factions—already influential and deeply rooted in the country's political culture—would interpret any negotiations from an expanded Russian line of control as unacceptable capitulation. Zelensky's political future, already tied tightly to the defense of national sovereignty, would be severely threatened. Rather than empowering Ukraine to negotiate a future on its own terms, the European proposal risks cornering the Ukrainian leadership and undermining its domestic legitimacy.
This outcome is not just a Ukrainian concern. It would also deeply affect Europe's credibility as a geopolitical actor. By formulating a clause that effectively rewards territorial conquest, European policymakers have positioned themselves in direct contradiction to the principles they claim to uphold: territorial integrity, peaceful conflict resolution, and the rejection of war as a tool of political negotiation. Instead of offering Ukraine a stable diplomatic framework, they may have inadvertently authored one of the most regrettable chapters in Europe's relationship with the Ukrainian people.
It is therefore understandable that some analysts argue the Trump-aligned plan, despite its flaws, at least provided clarity. While it openly specified which regions might be ceded—an unacceptable proposal to many Ukrainians—it did not implicitly encourage Russia to expand its control just before negotiations. From this perspective, the Trump plan, however controversial, avoided creating a time-sensitive incentive for battlefield escalation. For supporters of this view, aligning more closely with U.S. strategic priorities and becoming a cornerstone of American policy in Eastern Europe may have offered Ukraine a more stable and predictable framework than the ambiguous European position.
Of course, no plan is without risks, and no diplomatic initiative emerges in a vacuum. But it is precisely because the stakes are so high that the details of any peace proposal must be examined with extreme caution. Europe's well-intentioned but poorly calibrated clause risks transforming the coming weeks into some of the most dangerous of the entire war. It signals to Moscow that the battlefield, not the negotiating table, is the true arbiter of Ukraine's borders. And it signals to Kyiv that its fate may depend less on diplomacy and more on surviving a new wave of intensified attacks.
Ukraine does not deserve this. It does not deserve to be reduced to rubble in the final rush to a negotiation framework. It does not deserve to face political fragmentation because of externally imposed diplomatic timelines. And it does not deserve a peace process that places it at a systematic disadvantage from the very outset.
If Europe truly wishes to support Ukraine, it must reconsider this clause. Negotiations should aim to de-escalate violence, not fuel it. They should protect civilians, not expose them to heightened danger. And above all, they should respect Ukraine's sovereignty without forcing it into a diplomatic corner.
A more balanced, principled, and strategically sound approach is needed—one that avoids rewarding aggression and prevents the negotiation process from becoming a catalyst for further destruction. Without such recalibration, Europe risks undermining both Ukraine's future and its own moral authority at a decisive moment in history.
Marco Baratto
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento