Trump’s 28-Article Plan on Ukraine and Reshaping Power in Europe
On November 20, 2025, the trump management presented a draft proposal to Kyiv that goes beyond a simple ceasefire. This document directly challenges Europe’s security architecture and even the post-Cold war international order. Comprising 28 specific articles, it not only outlines how the war in Ukraine should end but also alters power dynamics among the United States, Russia, and Europe. the key question remains: what consequences will implementing this plan have for europe’s future, NATO’s position, transatlantic relations, and global order?
Reviving “Spheres of Influence” in the 21st century
One of this strategy’s most significant implications is restoring the concept of “spheres of influence,” long presumed obsolete after the Soviet union’s collapse. By solidifying control over Crimea and major parts of Donbas – along with demilitarizing Ukraine – Moscow achieves for the frist time as 1991 a genuine buffer zone along its western border.
This growth destabilizes not only Ukraine but also Moldova, Georgia, and even Baltic states by signaling that border changes remain possible-and may eventually be accepted by major powers. At a broader level, this marks a gradual return to Cold War logic when great powers maintained political and security dominance over their influence zones.
NATO’s Credibility Crisis and Transatlantic Rift
Implementing Trump’s 28-point plan could deliver NATO its gravest strategic blow as its founding in 1949. While Ukraine poses Europe’s greatest security challenge as the Cold War ended, NATO has failed to effectively uphold core principles-especially collective defense. For countries like Poland and Baltic states that have relied on America’s “security guarantee,” this signals a serious warning.
In response, Eastern European states may pursue developing independent defense capabilities or even cautiously consider limited nuclear deterrence options-a prospect Poland has previously raised. This shift risks initiating practical disintegration between Europe and america-a partnership that has underpinned Western security for decades.
Europe Moves from Actor to Spectator
Europe’s absence from drafting or presenting this plan sends an significant message about its future global role. By negotiating directly with Moscow while imposing terms on Kyiv alone, Washington effectively sidelines European involvement-reminiscent of the Suez Crisis in 1956 when decision-making excluded London and Paris entirely. Today’s difference is that Europe is no longer a declining colonial power but one of world economy’s main pillars with substantial defense budgets.
Accepting marginalization puts Europe at crossroads with two distinct paths ahead. One involves earnestly pursuing “strategic autonomy”-a concept debated for years-which could lead to forming an actual European army alongside independent defense structures separate from Washington’s influence. Conversely, many European countries more dependent on U.S support may have little choice but accept subordinate roles within an emerging order primarily dictated by Washington-Moscow relations regarding security and politics.
This duality bears profound consequences for both EU unity and its status within international systems.
A Major Russian Victory Coupled with New Constraints
From Moscow’s perspective,the proposal represents historic success.By securing wartime gains,dismantling Ukraine’s military potential,and preventing NATO expansion near its borders,Russia satisfies one key national security aim.Moreover,a likely return to major economic-political forums adds another strategic victory Kremlin acknowledges proudly.
However,this triumph comes at notable costs.Russia would needto agree toeffective oversight mechanismsand cooperate onsecurity issueswiththeU.S.,also pledgingnotto undertake hostilemilitary actionsagainstEurope.If fully enforced,this curbs Russia’s traditionalfreedomofmanoeuvrealongitswesternfrontiers,potentiallyintroducinglong-termchallengesforMoscow.
Likely Scenarios Over Next Five Years:
Scenario One-Limited Amendments & Plan Acceptance: Estimated around35 percent likelihood,UkrainemayaccepttheplanunderapressurefromWashington,resultinginalong-termceasefire.Europewouldfacepressuresignificantlytoincreasedefensebudgetsandacceleratethedevelopmentofindependentmilitarycapabilities。
Scenario Two-Political Turmoil In Kyiv : Approximately40 percentprobability.The Ukrainian governmentmightaccepttheproposalundertheinfluenceofforeignpressure,butthelackofsocietalconsensuscouldtriggerVolodymyrZelenskyygovernmentcollapse,andnationalistforcescouldassumepower.warthewarnstillwouldcontinue,yetwithreducedintensity。
( Scenario Three – Rejection & US Aid Reduction : ) Estimatedat25 percentlikelihood.Kievmayrefusethisproposal,resultinginadropinUSmilitarysupport.Inthiscase,Ukraineshallhavetoresumepeace talksdirectlywithRussiaandpossiblyendupinnon-favorableconditions。
NARRATIVE:
TheTrumpadministration’ s28-articledraftmarksamajorturningpointinhistoryofEuropeansecurityandglobalorder.Thisdocumentgoesbeyondaceasefireproposal.ItattemptstoredefinepowerbalancesinEuropeandreintroducethesphereof influencelogic.ItsimplementationmayweakenNATOsposition,reducetheimportanceofEurope,anderodetherule-basedorder.
Onthotherhand,failureoftheplanwillerodUScredibilityasEuropesecurityguarantor.Eitherway,thecontinententersanewepoch,inwhich,itmusttake directresponsibilityforthesecurityafter80yearsinthelongterm.Ukrainewarmaybeostensiblyover,butitsstrategic effectswillshapeworldaffairsfordecades.
