The Diplomacy Of Ultimatums: Why Kyiv Found Itself Between The Western Hammer And The European Anvil

The key issues to be resolved in the coming weeks—which will determine not only Ukraine’s future, but also Europe’s—are Ukraine’s future status in NATO and the European security architecture; the difficult problem of territorial concessions; and the creation of real security mechanisms, rather than declaratory ones, after a potential ceasefire. The immediate future, including a potential Zelenskyy-Trump summit with European leaders present, will reveal whether the parties can overcome their profound mutual distrust and find a way to end the war sustainably. Otherwise, diplomacy could devolve into a continuation of the war by more sophisticated means. In this scenario, Ukraine risks becoming a pawn in the great powers’ geopolitical game, and the principles of international law and state sovereignty could be sacrificed for short-term political interests and pragmatic calculations.

The Crisis Begins: The 28-Point Plan and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

On November 20, 2025, a political crisis erupted, shaking the foundations of European security and threatening to radically reshape the architecture of international relations. Almost simultaneously, leading American and Ukrainian media outlets published the full text of a sensational peace plan drafted by the U.S. administration. Developed in strict secrecy with the active involvement of Russian representative Kirill Dmitriev, the 28-point document contained conditions that experts immediately characterized as largely aligning with Moscow’s strategic interests.

The most contentious provisions triggered an immediate backlash in Kyiv and European capitals. These provisions included the legal recognition of Crimea and Donbas as inseparable parts of Russia, a cap on the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces at 600,000 troops with corresponding restrictions on weapon types, a renunciation of any future NATO membership in the Ukrainian constitution, and the granting of official status to the Russian language across Ukraine. This would have profound implications for the country’s education system and public administration.

European allies were particularly outraged by Point 14, which proposed allocating $100 billion of frozen Russian assets exclusively to U.S.-led Ukrainian reconstruction efforts. Fifty percent of the profits from these massive investments would flow directly into the American treasury. In private conversations with journalists, European officials described this approach as “economically unviable and politically humiliating” because it undermined their months of preparation for a €140 billion “reparations credit” plan for Ukraine. European leaders viewed this credit as their key instrument for maintaining strategic influence in the region and demonstrating solidarity with Kyiv. Many analysts noted that Washington’s move disregarded the EU’s substantial financial and political investments in the Ukrainian crisis, calling into question the concept of a traditional transatlantic partnership.

The issue of frozen Russian assets remains one of the most contentious and emotionally charged issues, capable of derailing any agreements at any moment. At the Brussels summit on October 23, EU leaders agreed to cover Ukraine’s urgent financial needs for the next two years but failed to reach a consensus on an ambitious plan to use frozen Russian assets for a large-scale, targeted loan to rebuild Ukraine’s shattered economy.

Belgium was the primary opponent of the most radical proposals because the international depository Euroclear, which holds the bulk of the frozen Russian-origin assets, is located on its territory. During closed-door meetings, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever repeatedly demanded legally binding guarantees to protect his country from potential financial losses and lawsuits from Moscow. He proposed an alternative model that would distribute all possible risks among EU members based on the principle of solidarity.

Initial Reactions and a Gathering Diplomatic Storm: Emergency Talks in Geneva

Just three days after the scandalous document was published on November 20, emergency multilateral talks began in Geneva. Representatives from the U.S., Ukraine, and—significantly, from the perspective of changing international diplomatic dynamics—senior officials from European Union institutions were in attendance. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office Andriy Yermak described the negotiations as “productive and constructive” in brief press statements. However, numerous diplomatic sources reported an “extremely tense and at times confrontational atmosphere,” in which the Ukrainian delegation had to “fight for every fundamental point” and defend the country’s core national interests. The most significant disagreements revolved around the future status of the occupied territories and security guarantees for Ukraine in the post-conflict period.

On November 24, a parallel diplomatic initiative unfolded when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed Ankara’s readiness to host direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul during a lengthy phone call with Vladimir Putin. International relations experts interpreted this strategic move as a well-calculated attempt by Turkey to bolster its status as a key regional mediator and independent player amid the escalating diplomatic confrontation between the great powers. Turkish diplomacy, which maintains unique relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv, clearly sought to leverage the crisis to strengthen its position on the international stage and demonstrate its ability to provide alternative solutions to complex international crises.

On November 24, a parallel diplomatic initiative unfolded when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed Ankara’s readiness to host direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul during a lengthy phone call with Vladimir Putin. International relations experts interpreted this strategic move as an attempt by Turkey to bolster its status as a key regional mediator and independent player amid the escalating diplomatic confrontation between the great powers. Turkey’s unique relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv allowed it to leverage the crisis and demonstrate its capacity to offer alternative venues for resolving complex international crises, strengthening its position on the international stage.

Click to see full-size image. (Anadolu Agency)

Tension Escalates: Unprecedented Ultimatums and Coordinated Responses

The situation deteriorated sharply on the evening of November 24. In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump accused the Ukrainian leadership of showing “zero gratitude and a complete lack of appreciation” for America’s multibillion-dollar peace efforts, using unusually harsh and uncompromising language. This unprecedented public outburst by a head of state against an ally created a new flashpoint in the already complicated relationship between Washington and Kyiv and drew criticism from American Democratic politicians and European partners, who expressed concern about such diplomatic methods.

Within an hour of Trump’s statement, Zelenskyy published a carefully crafted series of posts on X thanking 13 world leaders, including the chancellor of Germany, the president of France, and the prime ministers of Estonia, Sweden, and Luxembourg, clearly attempting to demonstrate broad international support and avoid isolation. “I sincerely thank you for your steadfast support and solidarity during these exceptionally difficult times for the Ukrainian people,” the Ukrainian president wrote in one message. This vividly illustrated to the international community the fragility of U.S.-Ukraine relations, as well as the importance of retaining the support of European partners in the face of mounting pressure from the American administration.

The European Response: Forging a Unified Front and an Alternative Vision

The European Union’s response to the United States’ unilateral initiatives was immediate and resolute, demonstrating Brussels’ growing confidence in asserting its strategic interests. On November 24, following emergency consultations with key capitals, including Berlin and Paris, European leaders presented their own comprehensive 24-point peace plan. The plan rejected any limitations on the Ukrainian army and insisted on the inviolability of the fundamental principle of international law that “borders cannot be changed by force, and any annexation of territory is unacceptable.”

Following the Geneva talks, EU leaders held an urgent video conference. European Council President António Costa stated in clear and unambiguous terms: “Issues directly related to European security, economic interests, and the future architecture of our continent require the full, unconditional participation and unanimous decision-making of the European Union as an independent and sovereign actor.” In her press statement, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen added that “the territorial integrity, political sovereignty, and democratic choice of Ukraine must be strictly respected by all parties without exception.”

French President Emmanuel Macron echoed sentiments from several European capitals and openly expressed deep skepticism about the reality and sincerity of the current peace process: “There is clearly no real readiness on the part of Russia to agree to a genuine and sustainable ceasefire and troop withdrawal.” He called for the rapid creation of a “strong, modern, high-tech Ukrainian army” capable of reliably defending the country’s sovereignty and preventing a new large-scale Russian attack.

Positions of Key European Players: From Warsaw to Berlin

Poland, a key NATO country on the eastern flank and one of Ukraine’s main regional supporters, took a clear and principled position. At a press conference in Warsaw, Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed serious doubts about the origin and authorship of the American plan. “It would be extremely useful and important to know precisely who the real author of this document is and what true interests lie behind it.” Tusk emphasized that no international agreement could weaken Poland’s or Europe’s collective security and favor the aggressor country that has jeopardized the foundations of the European order.

Tusk candidly noted that, in the current dialogue with the American side, all European leaders must choose their words “with extreme delicacy and caution” because “no one wants to scare off the Americans and President Trump prematurely and risk the U.S. completely withdrawing from this process.” At the same time, the seasoned Polish politician offered a pessimistic outlook, stating, “There are no real grounds for optimism about a swift conclusion to the peace process. However, all EU countries are prepared to support any process offering a glimmer of hope for ending this devastating war.”

Click to see full-size image. (Anadolu Agency)

As the EU’s informal leaders, Germany and France played a pivotal role in shaping and consolidating the unified European position. German Foreign Minister Johanna Wadephul told German media that the most problematic questions concerning Europe’s future and NATO’s architecture had been completely removed from the American plan as a result of the tense negotiations in Geneva. She called this an “important tactical and strategic victory for Brussels and proof of a united Europe’s growing influence.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was even more critical, suggesting that the original 28-point plan be condensed into a single fundamental document. He publicly labeled the initial American proposal for distributing profits from Russian assets as “utterly unthinkable and absolutely unacceptable for European interests.” This firm statement clearly reflected Berlin’s profound concern over the economic aspects of the American plan. It also demonstrated Germany’s determination to protect Europe’s strategic interests amid growing U.S.-Russian rapprochement, a development that is causing serious alarm in European capitals.

Ukraine’s Precarious Position: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Ukraine finds itself in an exceptionally difficult and ambiguous position in this complex geopolitical situation. It is forced to simultaneously resist external pressure and maintain a fragile internal political balance. In an emotional speech to the Ukrainian parliament, Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared that many aspects of the American plan were “absolutely unacceptable to Ukraine’s national interests.” He expressed concern about a catastrophic domestic reaction to potential territorial concessions and the loss of the strategic path toward European integration, a cornerstone of Ukrainian foreign policy.

Click to see full-size image. (UkrInform/Avalon)

After emergency consultations with key European partners, Zelenskyy expressed a cautious and deliberate willingness to proceed within the general framework of the American peace plan. However, he emphatically stressed the need to discuss all contentious issues directly with Donald Trump, with mandatory participation from European allies who could provide a balancing influence at the negotiations and protect Kyiv’s interests. This nuanced position highlights the delicate and dangerous balancing act that the Ukrainian leadership is attempting to maintain. On one side is growing pressure from Washington demanding swift and painful concessions. On another is the constant existential threat of Russian missiles and offensives on the front line. On a third is the wary caution of European partners who are unwilling to unconditionally support American initiatives in their current form. This creates a unique geopolitical trap for Kyiv from which it is nearly impossible to escape with dignity without significant losses and compromises.

Alexander Bevz, an advisor to the head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, stated in an interview with Ukrainian media: “The 28-point plan, as initially conceived by all participants, no longer exists. A significant number of points were completely removed at Ukraine’s insistence, while others were radically reworked and altered.” The Ukrainian delegation noted in its comments to the press that, while still far from ideal, the new version of the plan now includes “more reliable and practically feasible security mechanisms” in the short and long term, providing some grounds for cautious optimism.

Talks in Abu Dhabi

Despite all the protestations, Ukraine and Russia held unplanned direct talks with U.S. participation in Abu Dhabi on November 25. Kyrylo Budanov, the Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry, led the Ukrainian delegation. The American delegation expressed optimism about reaching a final agreement in the coming days. However, in an interview with Russian state media, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a significant statement about the details of the peace plan, noting that Moscow expects the final version of the document to fully reflect “the spirit of the understandings reached personally by Trump and Putin during their closed-door summit in Alaska in August 2025.” The details of this summit remain classified and are the subject of inquiry for international observers.

Conclusion

Despite the Trump administration’s publicly announced deadline, the promised Thanksgiving meeting to sign the peace agreement on November 27 never took place. This development was expected, given the deep crisis in relations caused by the public confrontation in the Oval Office in February and the difficult diplomatic work that followed.

The diplomatic situation surrounding the Ukrainian conflict is currently marked by extreme uncertainty, deep internal divisions within the Western bloc, and mounting tension in transatlantic relations. These factors cast doubt on the future of the traditional U.S.-Europe partnership. The publication of the American plan and subsequent events have exposed serious systemic contradictions between Washington and its European allies with stark clarity. These rifts extend far beyond the Ukrainian crisis, touching upon the foundations of the future world order and the global balance of influence.

For the first time since the conflict began, the European Union has asserted its strategic sovereignty and economic interests consistently and confidently, putting forward a unified and surprisingly firm alternative position. It is openly challenging American dominance in the settlement process and demonstrating growing self-confidence. Caught in the crossfire, Ukraine is desperately maneuvering and seeking complex compromises to avoid losing the vital support of any of its partners. However, its room to maneuver is shrinking rapidly as the crisis escalates and contradictions between the great powers intensify.

The key issues to be resolved in the coming weeks—which will determine not only Ukraine’s future, but also Europe’s—are Ukraine’s future status in NATO and the European security architecture; the difficult problem of territorial concessions; and the creation of real security mechanisms, rather than declaratory ones, after a potential ceasefire. The immediate future, including a potential Zelenskyy-Trump summit with European leaders present, will reveal whether the parties can overcome their profound mutual distrust and find a way to end the war sustainably. Otherwise, diplomacy could devolve into a continuation of the war by more sophisticated means. In this scenario, Ukraine risks becoming a pawn in the great powers’ geopolitical game, and the principles of international law and state sovereignty could be sacrificed for short-term political interests and pragmatic calculations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence

NOW hosted at southfront.press

Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.

The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation

Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com

SOUTHFRONT.PRESS

MORE ON THIS TOPIC:

• Novopavlovka Battle: Russian Army Flanks Ukrainian Forces And Advances Across Solenaya River
• The Drone Incident In Moldova: Provocation Or Real Threat? (Videos)