Moscow — Russia has formally rejected the European counter-proposal known as the E3 plan designed by the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to outline a potential framework for ending the war in Ukraine. The announcement came on November 24, when top Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov publicly dismissed the plan as “completely unconstructive,” signaling that Moscow does not consider it a viable basis for negotiation.
The rejection marks a significant moment in ongoing diplomatic efforts, particularly because the E3 plan was crafted specifically to address concerns that European governments believed were left unresolved, or tilted in Russia’s favor, in the earlier U.S. draft proposal. Understanding why Moscow turned down the European alternative requires examining the core differences between the two documents and how each interacts with Russian and Ukrainian strategic interests.
Background: Why the E3 Draft Was Created
The first major peace framework circulated in negotiations was a 28-point U.S. draft. European governments especially the E3 (UK, France, and Germany) voiced concerns that the U.S. document contained concessions that could endanger Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term security.
In response, the E3 developed their own counter-proposal. Rather than rewriting the entire plan, European negotiators preserved the structure but adjusted key sections related to territory, security guarantees, NATO membership, and the size of Ukraine’s armed forces.
The aim was to create a version that Western European states and Ukraine could support. This, however, is precisely what made it unacceptable to Moscow.
Sovereignty and Territorial Issues: A Central Point of Conflict
Territorial control remains the most contentious issue in any negotiation.
What the U.S. Draft Suggested
The earlier U.S. draft included clauses that observers interpreted as requiring Ukraine to withdraw from certain territories it still controls. It also introduced language that could have been interpreted as acceptance of Russia’s annexation claims.
What the E3 Counter-Proposal Changed
The European plan removed or revised these controversial ideas. It states that:
- Territory negotiations must begin from the current Line of Contact, not from Russia’s declared annexations.
- No country should be pressured to recognize territorial annexations resulting from military aggression.
- Any changes to borders must occur only after a ceasefire and through internationally supervised negotiations.
Why This Was Unacceptable to Russia
Moscow views territorial recognition as a foundational piece of any settlement. The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that its annexations are “not negotiable.”
By refusing to acknowledge these annexations, the E3 plan undermines a key Russian demand and significantly strengthens Ukraine’s negotiating position. As a result, Russia sees the territorial sections of the European plan as incompatible with its core political objectives.
NATO Membership and Security Guarantees: A Deep Strategic Divide
Security arrangements for Ukraine are another defining issue that separates the U.S., European, Ukrainian, and Russian positions.
Changes Made by the E3
The European counter-proposal removes the U.S. draft’s controversial clause that would have required Ukraine to permanently renounce NATO membership. Instead, the E3 version states that NATO membership should remain subject to the standard requirement: consensus among the alliance’s existing members.
The European text also suggests providing Ukraine with robust security guarantees, similar in structure to Article 5 of the NATO treaty though with slightly softer language and tailored mechanisms.
Russia’s Reaction
Russia has long demanded a legally binding guarantee that Ukraine will never join NATO.
The E3 proposal moves in the opposite direction: it preserves Ukraine’s long-term path to the alliance and strengthens Ukraine’s immediate security backing.
For Russia, this is a direct rejection of one of its core strategic demands in the conflict.
Military Limits on Ukraine: A Shift Toward Kyiv’s Defense Needs
Both the U.S. and EU drafts included limits on the size of Ukraine’s military, but the specifics differ.
U.S. Draft:
- Capped Ukraine’s armed forces at 600,000 personnel, regardless of wartime conditions.
E3 Draft:
- Raised the cap to 800,000 personnel, but only during peacetime.
- Allows Ukraine to expand its forces if attacked.
- Removes restrictions on NATO’s ability to expand or operate in the region.
Russia’s View
The Kremlin has consistently argued that a large, Western-backed Ukrainian army poses a threat to Russian security.
The E3’s increase in permitted troop size, combined with fewer constraints on Western military activity, makes the European proposal far less favorable to Moscow than the original U.S. version.
Sanctions, Assets, and Economic Conditions
Another key area of disagreement involves the handling of frozen Russian sovereign assets.
U.S. Draft Proposal
The original American plan proposed placing frozen Russian assets into investment structures for Ukraine’s reconstruction, with some profits flowing back to the U.S. government.
E3 Counter-Proposal
The E3 proposal removes this profit-sharing mechanism. Instead, it states:
- Russian sovereign assets remain frozen until Russia pays compensation for war damages.
- No diversion or profit-sharing occurs.
Why Russia Objects
Moscow rejects the legal and political implications of tying the unfreezing of assets directly to compensation.
Additionally, the proposal implies ongoing international leverage over Russia’s financial position something Moscow sees as unacceptable.
Russia’s Stated Preferred Basis for Negotiation
Despite rejecting the E3 proposal, Russian officials have signaled greater openness to the original U.S. draft. President Vladimir Putin and other senior figures have described the American proposal as containing “many acceptable positions.”
This preference reflects the fact that the U.S. draft:
- placed stricter limits on Ukraine’s military
- imposed constraints on NATO activities
- created a pathway for Russia's territorial claims to be acknowledged indirectly
- weakened Ukraine’s long-term NATO prospects
From Moscow’s perspective, the U.S. draft aligns more closely with Russia’s strategic interests.
Implications of Russia’s Rejection
Russia’s dismissal of the E3 counter-proposal carries several diplomatic consequences:
1. Negotiations May Shift Back Toward the U.S. Draft
With Moscow favoring the American document, pressure may build to focus discussion around that earlier framework.
2. The E3 Will Continue Supporting Ukraine’s Position
European governments remain concerned that any settlement must not compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty or European security.
3. Ukraine’s Position Aligns More Closely With Europe
Kyiv has voiced reservations about parts of the U.S. draft but found more support in the E3 version.
4. Peace Talks Are Likely to Become More Fragmented
If major negotiating blocs Europe, the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia cannot agree on a foundational text, progress toward peace will be slow.
Conclusion
Russia’s rejection of the European counter-proposal highlights the deep strategic divides that continue to shape the conflict. While the E3 aimed to rebalance the initial U.S. draft in favor of Ukraine’s sovereignty and European security concerns, the changes introduced were simply too far from Moscow’s core demands.
As a result, peace negotiations remain in a delicate and uncertain phase. The next steps will depend on whether diplomats can find a mutually acceptable starting point or whether the divergence between key international actors will continue to stall meaningful progress.
0 Comments