The proposed peace agreement for Ukraine, which was leaked to the media, has caused considerable alarm. The proposal echoed many of the points previously made by the Kremlin, and the language used seemed to be directly translated from Russian. This confusion was compounded after U.S. lawmakers claimed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio described it as a Russian plan. However, Rubio denied this, asserting that the plan was American-made, but admitted it incorporated “input from the Russian side.”

Regardless of its origins, the plan raises significant concerns.

Firstly, it would require Ukraine to cede control of territory currently not under its control to Russia. This includes strategically important areas in the Donetsk region, potentially making a future Russian offensive on Kyiv much easier. Ukraine has consistently maintained that any resolution should freeze the conflict along the existing frontlines and that a ceasefire must precede any further negotiations.

Secondly, it would greatly diminish Ukraine’s sovereignty by limiting its military capacity and compelling it to abandon its aspirations to join NATO, instead enshrining neutrality in its constitution (Ukraine was constitutionally neutral before Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014). While granting additional rights to the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church might appear innocuous, these provisions could significantly bolster the Kremlin’s influence within Ukraine.

Thirdly, the plan envisions an amnesty for “all parties,” including Russian soldiers who have committed war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine. This would include those responsible for the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, the siege of Mariupol, the illegal deportations of children, and ongoing human rights abuses. This plan fails to address the strong demand for justice within Ukraine.

Fourthly, the plan lacks concrete security guarantees for Ukraine, relying heavily on Russia’s promise not to invade again. This ignores Russia’s repeated violations of international and bilateral agreements since 2014. It rewards the aggressor by forcing the victim to make critical compromises that threaten its survival.

The proposal would increase Ukraine’s and Europe’s vulnerability to further Russian aggression. There is widespread distrust of Russia within Ukraine, with a prevailing belief that Russia would exploit any agreement or pause in fighting to rearm and launch another attack. Russia might also be emboldened to test Europe’s resolve by attacking a member of the E.U. or NATO, such as the Baltic states. The German defense minister has already urged NATO to prepare for a potential attack there by 2029.

Fortunately, there has been resistance to the plan, and a counter-proposal is reportedly being discussed. Negotiations are ongoing between U.S. and Russian officials in Abu Dhabi, and a meeting between Presidents Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump is scheduled for later this week. Regardless of the outcome, this situation should serve as a wake-up call for Europe.

Over the past year, since Trump’s return to office, European nations have recognized the need to bolster their own security. This has led to tangible actions, such as significant commitments to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. Europe has also taken on a major role in sourcing U.S. weapons for Ukraine and has substantially contributed to maintaining Ukraine’s fragile financial system and covering most of its civilian budget requirements.

However, Europe’s involvement in the diplomatic efforts surrounding Ukraine has been limited. While Europe has offered a counter-proposal to Trump’s peace plan, some of which may have been incorporated into the revised U.S. plan, this underscores Europe’s continued reliance on the U.S. for diplomatic initiatives, often forcing it into a reactive position after developments related to Ukraine (typically following discussions with Russia). Europe has a deeper understanding of the Russian threat, and its leaders possess more experience in dealing with Putin. The missing elements appear to be confidence and unity. It’s time for Europe to take a more proactive role, commit more resources by expanding the Coalition of the Willing, and exert maximum pressure on Russia, starting by finally seizing its frozen assets.

Europe, encompassing both the E.U. and the U.K., can no longer afford to merely react when its interests are threatened. It is increasingly evident that it cannot rely on the Trump Administration to secure a resolution to the war in Ukraine that is favorable to Europe. Europe must demonstrate initiative and prove that it is ready, like Ukraine, to stand up and fight for its interests.