France brands US-Russia peace deal a ‘capitulation’

Europe denounces 28-point plan that would require Zelensky to give up Donbas and halve size of Ukraine’s army Daily Telegraph 20/11/25 link France has accused the US of trying to force Ukraine to “capitulate” to Russia with its latest plan to end the conflict.

A 28-point proposal has been drawn up by Washington and Moscow, which would involve Ukraine ceding land to Russia and halving the size of its army. Jean-Noel Barrot, France’s foreign minister, said: “Peace cannot mean capitulation. We do not want the capitulation of Ukraine.” Several European leaders hit out at the plans, which were negotiated in secret over the last few weeks. Arriving at a European Union meeting in Brussels, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top foreign diplomat, said the proposal would now be the focus of the talks, instead of how to hit Russia’s economy and oil exports. The Telegraph on Wednesday reported that Mr Trump’s latest strategy would force Ukraine to cede de facto control of its eastern Donbas region, renting it to Russia as the price of a ceasefire. The strategy, agreed by American and Russian envoys without Kyiv’s involvement, would also cut the size of Ukraine’s armed forces in half and ban the country from possessing long-range missiles. It would also block deployments of foreign troops in Ukraine, end US military assistance and prevent foreign diplomatic aircraft from landing in the country. Russian would be made an official state language, and the Russian Orthodox Church would be given official status in the occupied territories. Ukraine would be permitted to negotiate security guarantees from the US and European governments to help maintain any ceasefire. The plan was roundly derided by Ukrainian officials as details of its contents emerged. Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out surrendering the mineral-rich Donbas region and its “fortress cities” to Russia as the price for peace, calling Vladimir Putin’s demands tantamount to surrender. Commenting on the deal on Wednesday morning, Ms Kallas said: “What we Europeans have always supported is a long-lasting and just peace; we welcome any efforts to achieve that. Of course, for any plan to work, it needs the Ukrainians and Europeans on board. “So this is very clear, we have to understand in this war there is one aggressor and one victim, we haven’t heard any concessions on the Russian side.” In response to the report, Downing Street said it shared Mr Trump’s desire to end the war, but insisted that peace must be both “just and lasting”. A No10 spokesman said that the UK has been “repeatedly clear that only the Ukrainian people can determine their future”. Mr Barrot said: “Discussions are needed for us to reach a just and durable peace in Ukraine, they should start with a ceasefire on the contact line that allows for orderly discussions on the question of territories and security.” His German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, echoed that sentiment, saying it was a “prerequisite” for any negotiations that Russia agreed to a truce without any conditions. Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, told reporters: “We commend peace efforts, but Europe is the main parent, the main supporter of Ukraine, and of course, its European security is at stake, so we expect to be consulted. “But also, I hope it’s not the victim that has restrictions on its ability to defend itself, but it’s the aggressor whose aggressive potential should be restricted.” European sources complained that they had been kept in the dark about the proposed peace accord, but Kestutis Budrys, Lithuania’s foreign minister, was more sanguine. “I do not see the big tragedy that there are some ideas how to end this war – that is good that it is coming from United States,” he said. “Look at the positive side. If they are working on it, it means that they are engaging. They are not dropping it for Europe only to deal with.” It is said that the plan’s contents largely resemble the demands placed on Ukraine by Putin when he met Donald Trump for a peace summit in Alaska in August. The US president had hoped to organise a second conference in Budapest, but it was cancelled because it was deemed Moscow had not moved from its hardline position. The Kremlin said on Thursday that any peace plan would have to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and that though there had been contact with the US, there were no negotiations with Washington on such a deal. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, declined to comment on whether Putin had been briefed on the details of the reported plan. A top-level Pentagon delegation led by Dan Driscoll, the US army secretary, arrived in Ukraine on Thursday morning and was expected to meet Mr Zelensky. Hamish Falconer, a Foreign Office minister, told the Commons on Thursday that it was Putin “failing to come to the table”, not Ukraine. “What should be the starting point of negotiations? That was clear from the G7 statement: the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. And we remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,” he added. “It will be for Ukraine to determine the negotiations, which it is prepared to enter.” MPs were also told that Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, is in “regular contact” with Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state. Mr Rubio had suggested halting the meeting, defended the US decision to forge a new peace proposal with the Russians. He wrote on social media that achieving a “durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. That is why we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict”. Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, warned that giving “territorial concessions” to Russia would mean “rewarding Putin’s barbaric and unprovoked aggression”. Speaking to The Telegraph, she urged the Government “to leverage British influence in every way it can for Ukraine” because its troops are “on the frontline battling an attempt to re-shape the whole international order by force”.