Trump backs off hard deadline for Kiev after tough EU response

The European Union has made it clear that it will not agree to any peace agreements on Ukraine that would weaken its army or secure captured territories for Russia. This was stated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen following talks on the sidelines of the G20 summit in South Africa, POLITICO reports.

The occasion was the initiative of US President Donald Trump's administration: the 28-point plan presented by Washington assumes, in particular, territorial concessions to Moscow, reduction of the Ukrainian army by about half and transfer of 50 per cent of the profits from the country's post-war reconstruction to the US.

"Any realistic and sustainable peace plan must not only stop the killing and end the war, but also not lay the foundations for a new conflict in the future," von der Leyen emphasised.

Three "red lines" of the EU

The head of the European Commission outlined three fundamental conditions without which the EU is not ready to support a peace agreement:

1. Borders cannot be changed by force. Brussels rejects the idea of securing for Russia the territories seized as a result of aggression.

2. No restrictions on the Ukrainian army that make the country vulnerable. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should determine the level of its defence capabilities on its own. Any external restrictions, according to von der Leyen, would undermine the security not only of Ukraine but also of Europe as a whole.

3. The EU's decisive involvement and Ukraine's free choice. The union insists that the EU's key role in securing peace must be reflected in the arrangements and Ukraine must retain the right to choose its own future. "They chose the European path", she recalled.

European leaders are holding urgent consultations on the margins of the summit in South Africa and intend to continue discussions on Monday during a joint visit to Angola. European Council President António Costa recognised US efforts to find peace, but called the current draft only "a framework that needs further refinement".

In parallel, EU representatives are in Geneva for US-brokered talks. European capitals are emphatic: no peace plan can be agreed without Kiev's direct involvement, and critics call the current draft one that encourages aggression and leaves a window for more attacks.

Trump backs away from ultimatum

Amid mounting criticism, Donald Trump softened his rhetoric and told reporters outside the White House that the proposed plan was not "his final offer." He said he "wants peace" and believes the war should have been ended "a long time ago".

Earlier, Trump effectively gave Kiev a deadline - before Thanksgiving - by hinting that Ukraine should accept American terms. Now he has said that if President Volodymyr Zelensky does not agree to the plan, "then he can continue to fight as hard as he can."

The origin of the document raised additional questions.

A separate political crisis has erupted in Washington over the origin of the peace plan itself. Senators Mike Rounds (a Republican considered pro-Ukraine) and Jeanne Shaheen (a Democrat) issued a joint statement after a phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. According to Rounds, Rubio explicitly made it clear that the US was acting more as a recipient and mediator in this story: the document was given to one of the US representatives by a third party, and it is "not our recommendation or our peace plan."

The senator stressed that Washington only took the opportunity to convey this proposal to Kiev, while the text itself became public as a result of a leak rather than an official publication by the administration. In fact, by doing so, lawmakers of both parties showed that they viewed the plan more as an external "initiative for transfer" rather than as a product of their own diplomacy.

Against this background, one recalls the words of investigator Hristo Grozev, who claimed to have seen an early version of a similar document about six months ago: according to his description, it was an entirely Russian concept with roughly the same set of ideas, only with 30 points. Later, according to Grozev, two clauses disappeared from the draft:

1. the proposal that U.S. investors help postwar Russia emerge from an expected 1990s-style recession,

2. the idea of a U.S.-Russian alliance against China wrapped in rhetoric about "Christian unity."

After the senators' statement, the situation became even more acute. State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott recalled that both Marco Rubio and the entire Trump administration had publicly referred to the plan as agreed to by the United States and framed as a "joint effort between the Russians and Ukrainians."

In response, Republican Congressman Don Bacon, also known as a supporter of supporting Ukraine, sharply criticised what was happening. He said that some of those in charge "should have resigned on Monday" because of the "blatant buffoonery" the country has witnessed in recent days, which he believes has damaged the United States, undermined the confidence of allies and emboldened adversaries.

In fact, Senators Rounds and Shaheen have publicly contradicted the official State Department line, a highly risky move for Republican Rounds amid Trump's influence in the party. This shows how deeply divided even the Republican field is on the issue of the proposed "peace" and how seriously the pro-Ukrainian wing takes the threats from the current version of the plan.

Against this background, the pressure on the Ukrainian delegation in Geneva, according to observers, remains very strong: despite disagreements in Washington and the EU's tough stance, the White House is still trying to promote the idea of a quick agreement.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also questioned the origin of the document, noting that before discussing the plan, it would be good to "understand exactly who its author is and where it was created."

Europe insists on finalisation

After meetings on the margins of the G20, António Costa reiterated that the US initiative may be a starting point, but requires serious revisions.

EU representatives emphasise: they support Washington's efforts, but want the final version to take into account European approaches to a "just and lasting peace".

In the near future, Cossa's chief of staff, Pedro Lawerty, and a senior European Commission official, Bjorn Seibert, are expected to take part in further US-mediated talks. The EU, meanwhile, maintains that its line of support for Ukraine remains unchanged.

The only EU leader who fully supported Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff's plan was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has traditionally taken a pro-Russian stance. Other governments fear that the document disproportionately favours the Kremlin.

European diplomats, at the same time, note the unpredictability of the White House's position: Trump has repeatedly moved from threats to cut aid to Ukraine to statements about tough sanctions against Russia. However, as one of the interlocutors recalls, "each time, in the end, support for Ukraine continued".