TEHRAN – Nearly 1,370 days into the Russia–Ukraine war, President Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan has laid bare the contradictions of Western policy. For years, the United States and Europe encouraged Ukraine to confront Russia, promising NATO membership and protection. Now, as the war drags on, those same powers step back, leaving Ukraine to face the consequences of a fire lit by the West itself.

Trump’s proposal, reported by multiple outlets, is striking because it mirrors Russia’s long-standing demands:

Territorial recognition: Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk would be formally acknowledged as Russian. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the current line of contact, effectively locking in Moscow’s control.

Military limits: Ukraine’s army would be reduced to 600,000 soldiers, far fewer than its current strength. NATO would pledge not to expand into Ukraine, and no NATO troops would be stationed there.

Diplomatic reintegration: Russia would be welcomed back into the G8, sanctions lifted, and $100 billion in frozen Russian assets directed toward rebuilding Ukraine. Another portion would be invested in a joint US-Russia fund to strengthen ties.

Security guarantees: Ukraine would receive vague promises of protection, but the real military presence would be European jets stationed in Poland, not in Ukraine itself.

Social measures: Ukraine would hold elections within 100 days, and both sides would introduce educational programs aimed at promoting tolerance and reducing prejudice.

Trump’s proposal is a settlement that reflects demands Moscow has been making since the early stages of the conflict — demands that go back to 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and have remained consistent ever since.

What is new is that these demands are now being placed before President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who must decide whether to accept them under pressure from Washington.

Putin’s calculated welcome

President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal, calling it “a modernized version” that could form the basis of peace. He noted that Ukraine still resists, but argued that Kyiv and its European allies are clinging to illusions of defeating Russia on the battlefield.

Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev reportedly spent several days negotiating with US officials, showing Russia’s willingness to engage seriously. The Kremlin’s reaction was measured but clear: Russia sees the plan as validation of its long-standing demands. For Moscow, this is not a concession but confirmation that its patience and persistence have paid off.

Zelenskyy’s tightrope

President Zelenskyy appears to have been caught between a rock and a hard place. He insists that any peace must be “dignified” and respect sovereignty. Yet he admits the pressure from Washington is immense. In his words, Ukraine risks either “losing its dignity or losing a key partner.”

Trump has demanded an answer within a week. Some Ukrainian officials have denounced the plan as “capitulation” and “the end of Ukraine as an independent country.” But Zelenskyy knows that rejecting the plan could mean losing American support, while accepting it would mean surrendering territory and abandoning the dream of NATO membership.

Even as Zelenskyy struggles abroad, a domestic crisis has erupted at home.

Corruption scandal 

Ukraine has been rocked by its biggest corruption scandal under Zelenskyy. Investigators have uncovered bags of cash hidden in Kyiv apartments, a golden toilet installed in one residence, and recordings of massive kickbacks tied to government-backed energy projects. The fallout forced the resignations of Justice Minister German Galushchenko and Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk, while sanctions were imposed on Timur Mindich, a close associate accused of laundering $100 million. Public anger is rising, with headlines accusing figures close to the presidency of stealing from the country during wartime. Critics argue Zelenskyy’s response has been slow and weak, raising fears of political instability. The twin pressures of diplomacy abroad and corruption within his own administration now threaten Zelenskyy’s credibility.

Europe’s hollow support

European leaders were caught off guard by Washington’s initiative. Germany’s Friedrich Merz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Britain’s Keir Starmer quickly assured Zelenskyy of their “unchanged and full support.” They welcomed US efforts but stressed that Ukraine’s armed forces must remain capable of defending sovereignty.

Their words were carefully chosen. Europe cannot afford to openly challenge Washington, yet it also cannot ignore the risk that Trump’s plan undermines Ukraine’s independence. This cautious diplomacy reveals Europe’s weakness: it follows the US lead, even when that means endorsing a plan that validates Russia’s gains.

Behind the rhetoric lies impotence. Europe has neither the military strength nor the political unity to shape outcomes independently. Its role has been reduced to applauding American initiatives, even when those initiatives contradict Europe’s own stated principles.

Roots of the fire: Bucharest 2008

Top-ranking official attendees of the NATO summit pose for a family picture in Bucharest, April 3, 2008. Photo: Reuters

The war did not begin in 2022. Its roots stretch back much further, to the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008. At that meeting, Western leaders issued a declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.” For Moscow, this was a red line drawn across its security map.

Russia had long warned that NATO’s expansion toward its borders would be unacceptable. President Putin, who had attended the summit in person, delivered a stark message to allied leaders: admitting Ukraine and Georgia, he argued, would be a “huge strategic mistake” that would destabilize the region. His intervention underscored Russia’s determination to resist what it saw as encirclement.

The United States, under President George W. Bush, pressed hard for immediate steps toward membership through a Membership Action Plan (MAP). Washington believed that anchoring Ukraine and Georgia firmly in NATO would consolidate democratic reforms and deter what he called Russian “aggression”.

Yet Germany and France resisted, fearing that such a move would provoke Moscow and fracture European stability. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France argued that neither Ukraine nor Georgia was ready for NATO integration, citing internal political fragility and unresolved territorial disputes.

The outcome was a compromise that satisfied no one: NATO promised eventual membership but offered no timeline, no roadmap, and crucially, no security guarantees. This halfway measure created what many analysts later called the “worst of both worlds” — raising expectations in Kyiv and Tbilisi while leaving them exposed to Russian pressure.

In the years that followed, the consequences of Bucharest became clear. Georgia faced war with Russia just months later in August 2008, when Russian forces intervened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ukraine, meanwhile, remained in limbo — promised eventual NATO membership but denied real protection. This vulnerability paved the way for Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and culminated in the full-scale war of 2022.

Many historians and strategists now view the Bucharest summit as a turning point. By offering Ukraine and Georgia a distant promise without immediate safeguards, NATO inadvertently created a dangerous vacuum. It signaled commitment without capacity, leaving both countries in a precarious position — a gap between words and deeds that helped set the stage for the current war.

Promises without protection

Ukraine’s predicament today is the direct result of misplaced trust in the West. The US and Europe encouraged Kyiv to fight, but now they negotiate terms that validate Russia’s gains. What is called a “peace plan” is really a settlement of Ukraine’s fate, decided by Washington and Moscow, with Europe trailing behind.

The West lit the fire in Bucharest in 2008, fanned the flames in Crimea in 2014, and left Ukraine to burn in 2022. Today, Ukraine pays the price for Western hubris and hypocrisy. Trump’s plan only makes clear what has been true all along: the West pushed Ukraine into confrontation, but when the war dragged on, it threw Ukraine under the bus.