International Press Review for October 17–28, 2025
- Anton Kuchuhidze
- 1 day ago
- 7 min read
In recent weeks, the international community's attention has been focused on the peace plan proposed by Donald Trump's administration. The document has been widely criticized by leading politicians and experts, who believe that it effectively rewards the aggressor and punishes the victim.
For example, in an article by Bloomberg, the author sharply criticizes the American plan to end the russian invasion, calling it one that undermines the foundations of international law. The document does not contain any demands for russia to refrain from further annexations and does not provide for any control mechanisms or international monitoring. There are also no provisions for the withdrawal of russian heavy weapons and drones to a safe distance, which makes it possible for attacks to resume. The plan calls for reducing the Ukrainian army to 600,000 troops, prohibits allies from deploying troops on Ukrainian territory, and does not impose any similar restrictions on Russia, effectively depriving Ukraine of the ability to deter aggression.
The author emphasizes that Ukraine and Europe cannot accept such a plan, as it creates the conditions for new russian aggression. He considers the optimal solution to be amendments to the plan that guarantee security: a wide demilitarized zone, the presence of international peacekeepers, and no restrictions on the Ukrainian army and arms supplies.
In an article in The Washington Post, the author argues that any possible agreement must be accompanied by deeper integration of Ukraine with the West. To strengthen its economic partnership with the US, Ukraine must accelerate reforms, overcome corruption barriers, and ensure transparent conditions for business.
Another review in Bloomberg emphasizes that a failed agreement would pose a threat not only to Ukraine but also to the strategic interests of the US. A stronger russia would become much more dangerous for Europe, forcing Washington to increase its presence in NATO and divert resources from containing China.
The author calls the optimal strategy achieving a ceasefire on the current front lines, postponing territorial issues, refusing to restrict the Ukrainian army or allied presence, and providing Ukraine with binding security guarantees and the use of frozen russian assets for reconstruction. Congress is advised to authorize the transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and to introduce automatic sanctions against buyers of russian energy resources in the event of a resumption of hostilities. European countries are encouraged to provide Taurus missiles and agree to loans against frozen russian assets.
According to the Financial Times, the US and Ukraine reported "significant progress" in negotiations to end the war after meetings in Geneva, although key differences with russia remain unresolved. Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed optimism about the possibility of a quick agreement. The draft document was reduced from 28 points to 19, but without specifying which provisions were removed.
Even before the talks began, European leaders expressed concern about certain points in the plan, particularly those relating to sanctions and frozen russian assets, which they consider to be the EU's competence. The allies emphasized three key principles:
1. Borders cannot be changed by force;
2. Ukraine, as a sovereign state, should not have restrictions on its armed forces;
3. The EU should play a leading role in ensuring peace.
At the same time, as noted in Le Monde, defense cooperation between France and Ukraine is deepening: an agreement has been signed to purchase 100 Rafale fighter jets, and the transfer of SAMP/T air defense systems, drones, and AASM aerial bombs has been agreed upon. France seeks to integrate the defense industries of the two countries and modernize the Ukrainian army.
The European Parliament has also approved a €1.5 billion program to integrate the EU's defense industry with Ukraine. Part of the funds will go to the Ukraine Support Instrument, and the EU considers cooperation with Ukraine to be key to strengthening its defense autonomy and developing joint arms production. This was reported by The Washington Post.
As a result, the peace plan proposed by the US in its current form does not provide adequate security guarantees for Ukraine, creates risks of further escalation, and effectively limits its defense capabilities, while making significant concessions to russia. International experts and European allies emphasize the need to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty, the inviolability of its borders, and the EU's active role in ensuring peace.
European Union lawmakers voted on Tuesday to deepen integration of the bloc’s defense industry with Ukraine as a U.S. peace plan remains in flux and Russia's unconventional warfare operations rattle the 27-nation bloc.
European Parliament legislators voted 457-148, with 33 abstentions, to approve a 1.5-billion euro ($1.7 billion) program, with 300 million euros ($345 million) slated for the Ukraine Support Instrument.
The European Union will unveil a legal proposal in the coming days that would finally enable the bloc to use Russia’s immobilized central bank assets for a €140 billion ($162 billion) loan to Ukraine.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told lawmakers in Strasbourg, France, on Wednesday that Brussels was now ready to present the text.
“I cannot see any scenario where the European taxpayers alone will pay the bill,” she said.
A bad deal would pose a threat not just to Ukraine, but to US strategic interests as well. Russia would emerge militarily ascendant, menacing Europe and increasing rather than reducing the burden on America. The Pentagon would likely need to ramp up support for NATO allies with more troops, more surveillance assets, more missile defenses and more crisis management — leaving fewer resources to check China in the Indo-Pacific. If Putin violated the agreement, as past evidence suggests he would, the US would either have to push back at risk of getting pulled into a larger, messier war — or be exposed as a paper tiger.
This distress will eventually become critical, perhaps endangering Putin’s regime. The key to a decent settlement — one that ends the war without additional, crippling territorial concessions by Kyiv and comes with meaningful security guarantees — is to accelerate the crisis of Putin’s war effort, while delaying the crisis of Ukraine’s.
The means are not a mystery. The US needs to tighten the squeeze on Russian energy revenue, especially by targeting Chinese buyers of Putin’s oil. It should use sanctions more aggressively to crack down on a flourishing Sino-Russian strategic trade, which features dual-use goods that keep Putin’s army in the field. Intelligence assistance and weapons — perhaps not the controversial idea of Tomahawk missiles, but more affordable alternatives — can further disrupt the Russian war economy by aiding Ukraine’s ranged-strike campaign.
The US plan for ending Russia’s invasion is a remarkable document. It rewards aggression and punishes the victim. It undermines the most important principle of international law, which is that sovereign borders should not be changed by force. It suggests security guarantees, but fails to say how they would be enforced — and then limits the means by which they could be.
It amounts to the enforced capitulation of Ukraine for gain and profit, the blueprint for a modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in which one side’s interest in the division of Ukraine is territorial and the other’s commercial. It is, in a word, shameful.
French President Emmanuel Macron warned on Tuesday, November 25, that Russia showed little sign of seeking a ceasefire with Ukraine, calling for "continued pressure" on Moscow to negotiate. His comments come amid fresh attempts to broker an end to the nearly four-year war after the United States put forward a 28-point plan that has been criticized for echoing Russia's demands, which Ukraine and European allies have since worked to amend.
"There is clearly no Russian willingness to agree a ceasefire today," Macron said after a video call between the 30 countries of the so-called "coalition of the willing" supporting Kyiv.
The goal is to help Ukraine withstand Russian aggression as much as possible, while also rebuilding its armed forces to deter any future attacks if and when the fighting eventually ceases. That is the philosophy behind the cooperation agreements unveiled on Monday, November 17, during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Paris. Upon his arrival at Villacoublay air base west of Paris, Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a letter of intent for the acquisition of 100 Rafale fighter jets and their weaponry, with deliveries that could take place over the next 10 years if firm orders are confirmed.
The new draft, Kyslytsya said, bore little resemblance to the earlier leaked version of the peace proposal that had caused uproar in Kyiv. “Very few things are left from the original version,” he said.
“We developed a solid body of convergence, and a few things we can compromise on,” he said. “The rest will need leadership decisions.”
Each side will take the latest working drafts back to Washington and Kyiv to brief the presidents. The Trump administration was then expected to approach Moscow to seek to advance the talks, he said.
US and Ukrainian officials reported progress in efforts to end the war with Russia after talks in Geneva, but provided no details on how some deep disagreements between Moscow and Kyiv were to be resolved.
“Is it really possible that big progress is being made in Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine???” US President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social network on Monday morning. “Don’t believe it until you see it, but something good just may be happening.”
As the flurry of diplomatic activity to achieve peace in Ukraine continues, many observers seem to be losing sight of the objective. A fair and just peace would be desirable, but that ship sailed long ago.
Instead, the goal of diplomacy should be to achieve a sovereign, independent Ukraine, anchored in the West, and capable of defending itself. That will likely require difficult compromises with Russia. In this context, proposed concessions on Ukraine’s NATO membership or military size may be regrettable necessities. But asking Ukraine to compromise its front lines would be a grave and potentially irreversible mistake.
Comments