European Solidarity has stepped up its criticism of the 28-point United States proposal on Ukraine, describing it not only as a “Russian political and geopolitical trap” but also as a potential trigger for constitutional conflict in Kyiv and a wider crisis in the international system.
The plan – variously described in diplomatic circles as a prospectus, design or draft roadmap – is widely referred to in European media as “Donald Trump’s peace plan”. It contemplates Ukrainian territorial concessions, limitations on the country’s armed forces and an end to NATO ambitions, alongside the release and partial use of frozen Russian assets for reconstruction projects.
European Solidarity argues that any Ukrainian official putting their signature to a text that recognises changes to Ukraine’s borders would risk actions “with the features of state treason”. Party representatives point to the Ukrainian Constitution, which defines the territorial structure of the state and lists the regions that form part of Ukraine, and which allows changes to that structure only through a nationwide referendum. Any agreement transferring territory, they say, would therefore fall outside the constitutional framework and immediately raise questions of criminal liability.
The party further links its objections to international law. The UN Charter and subsequent practice treat territorial integrity and sovereignty as core principles, and the UN General Assembly has repeatedly rejected Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and occupation of other Ukrainian territories. European Solidarity contends that recognition of Russian sovereignty over any occupied area would contradict these commitments and create a precedent with direct consequences for other conflicts.
In this context, the party endorses the European view that any negotiation should start from a clear acknowledgement that currently held areas are “occupied territories” under international law, subject to the regime of effective control. On this reading, the territories remain legally Ukrainian, while the occupying power bears responsibility for the protection of civilians and the provision of basic services. European diplomats have indicated that they see no room for revising this status, warning that attempts to alter it could destabilise the broader international order.
European Solidarity’s statement is accompanied by a wider critique of the strategic logic behind the US text. The party notes that earlier ideas about “leasing” occupied territories were reportedly explored and then dropped, amid concern that such an arrangement would leave several million residents in a quasi-feudal position without full citizenship rights. The current draft, it argues, returns to the earlier problem of de facto partition, but in a more explicit, anti-constitutional form.
The party also recalls that many countries, including the United States, have previously pledged not to recognise changes to Ukraine’s borders imposed by force. It cites the 2018 US “Crimea Declaration”, signed by then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which committed Washington to maintaining a policy of non-recognition of Russia’s annexation and explicitly drew on the 1940 Welles Declaration concerning the Baltic states. According to European Solidarity, any shift now towards recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea or other territories would contradict this earlier stance and unsettle long-standing non-recognition practice.
A further element of the criticism concerns the financial architecture reportedly built into the US proposal. Media reporting suggests that Washington would obtain around $100 billion from immobilised Russian assets held in European banks, with the remainder directed into joint reconstruction projects, some of which could ultimately benefit Russia once sanctions are eased. In this model, the United States, rather than Ukraine, would control a substantial share of the resources for rebuilding, with American entities taking a significant share of the profits. European Solidarity presents this as a political risk, arguing that such an arrangement could weaken Ukraine’s position while creating perceptions of conflicting interests among its partners.
The party places its legal and geopolitical concerns alongside a domestic governance critique. As in its initial reaction, European Solidarity draws attention to the composition of the Ukrainian delegation at talks in Geneva, noting that some of those involved have been linked in Ukrainian reporting to the “Mindich tapes” and the wider Operation Midas corruption investigation in the energy and defence sectors. In the party’s view, the presence of figures associated in the public mind with high-profile scandals risks undermining Kyiv’s credibility at a moment when its negotiating position depends heavily on trust, transparency and personal integrity.
European Solidarity therefore calls for the draft to be examined in detail by the Verkhovna Rada before any further steps are taken. It argues that parliament, as the institution representing the Ukrainian people, should set out clear parameters for the delegation through a formal resolution, defining constitutional red lines on territorial questions and codifying the national position. Party figures say such an approach would not constitute a call for protest, but rather an exercise in democratic mandate-building that could be presented to US and European partners as evidence of domestic consensus.
The party also urges other political forces and civil society organisations to state their views publicly, for example through party statements and declarations by professional and civic associations. In its assessment, the ability of Ukrainian negotiators to point to a broad, transparent spectrum of internal positions – from government, opposition and non-parliamentary actors – would strengthen Kyiv’s hand in Geneva and subsequent formats, particularly if pressure from Washington over the 28-point plan intensifies.
For now, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that he will not accept any outcome that betrays Ukraine’s fundamental interests, while acknowledging that the country faces a “very difficult choice” between resisting pressure and preserving key alliances. European Solidarity’s intervention signals that the internal debate over how to navigate that choice – and on what legal and political basis – is likely to become sharper as discussions in Switzerland proceed.
