The war in Ukraine cannot be resolved through half-measures or concessions to the aggressor. If peace is to be achieved, it must be structured on firm principles, transparent conditions, and European leadership. History has shown us that appeasement never works, Neville Chamberlain’s failed deal with Hitler stands as a permanent reminder. Aggression should not pay off, and Ukraine must not be pressured into surrendering sovereignty under the illusion of “compromise.”
This action plan outlines the steps Europe and Ukraine must take to create a clear, enforceable framework for peace—while ensuring that Russia faces accountability and deterrence.
Step 1: Remember the Broken Agreements
To understand why clarity is needed, the people must know what agreements already exist and how Russia has broken them.
1. The Budapest Memorandum (1994)
- What it said: Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal (the world’s third largest at the time) in exchange for security guarantees. Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and existing borders, and never to use force or economic pressure against it.
- Who broke it: Russia, by annexing Crimea in 2014, starting war in Donbas, and launching the full-scale invasion in 2022.
2. The Russia–Ukraine Friendship Treaty (1997)
- What it said: Both countries agreed to respect each other’s borders and territorial integrity. Russia recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine.
- Who broke it: Russia, by occupying and annexing Crimea in 2014 and waging war against Ukraine.
3. The Minsk Agreements (2014 and 2015)
- What they said: Ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political reforms in Donbas to allow special local status while remaining part of Ukraine.
- Who broke it: Both sides had issues, but overwhelmingly Russia, which continued arming separatists, sending troops, and refusing to honor ceasefires.
4. The Charter on a Distinctive Partnership with NATO (1997, 2009 updates)
- What it said: Ukraine was recognized as a NATO partner, and NATO pledged cooperation and eventual path to integration.
- Status: NATO has delayed full membership but repeatedly reaffirmed that Ukraine has the right to choose its alliances.
5. The Bucharest Summit Declaration (2008)
- What it said: NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” in the future.
- Status: This promise remains unfulfilled. NATO allies failed to act decisively, leaving Ukraine exposed.
6. Western Security Guarantees (post-2022)
- What they are: Multiple bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Western nations (UK, France, Germany, U.S., Nordic states, EU as a whole) committing to long-term military aid, reconstruction, and defense cooperation.
- Status: Active, but not binding in the same way as NATO Article 5. They provide support but no ironclad protection.
Step 2: Draft a Public Peace Framework
Ukraine, in coordination with its European allies, must put into writing a comprehensive document that states in clear and precise terms what Russia must do for peace to succeed. This should include:
- Territorial Sovereignty: Russia must recognize Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and Donbas.
- Withdrawal of Forces: Full and verifiable withdrawal of all Russian troops, mercenaries, and intelligence operatives from Ukrainian territory.
- Reparations and Accountability: A framework for reparations to rebuild Ukraine and mechanisms to hold Russian officials accountable for war crimes.
- Security Guarantees: Legally binding guarantees that Russia cannot threaten Ukraine again.
Step 3: Release the Framework Publicly Beforehand
The framework must be made public before it is delivered to the Kremlin. Transparency is essential to:
- Prevent backroom deals that undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.
- Show the world that Ukraine and Europe are setting the terms, not Russia.
- Expose any Russian refusal for what it is: a rejection of reasonable peace.
Publishing the framework beforehand also neutralizes Kremlin propaganda that portrays the West as weak or divided.
Step 4: Deliver the Framework Officially to Moscow
After public release, the framework should be delivered directly to President Putin through official diplomatic channels. This creates a clear, documented baseline for accountability: Russia cannot later claim ignorance or misinterpretation.
Step 5: Firmly Reject Putin’s Counter-Demands
Any Russian response will likely include illegitimate counter-demands: territorial concessions, restrictions on Ukraine’s alliances, or recognition of Russian control over occupied lands. These must be rejected outright.
Negotiating on Putin’s terms would repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain in 1938. Appeasement only fuels aggression. Peace can only come from Russia meeting conditions set by Ukraine and Europe not the other way around.
Step 6: NATO Membership—No Half Measures
There is no room for ambiguity. Ukraine cannot be “half in, half out” of NATO. Either it is in, with Article 5 protection, or it is left exposed again. Half-measures like vague “security guarantees” are insufficient.
- Fact: Ukraine has proven itself to be the most effective fighting army in Europe today, with real combat experience, modern tactics, and unmatched expertise in drone warfare.
- Fact: NATO benefits more from Ukraine’s membership than Ukraine benefits from NATO. Ukraine brings capabilities that Europe’s militaries lack.
- Decision: Ukraine must become a NATO member, and the framework must state this clearly as a long-term requirement.
Step 7: Europe Must Lead Diplomatically—America Must Step Back
While America remains a critical defense partner, its role in this process should be strictly limited to supplying modern and effective weapons to Europe, which will then transfer them to Ukraine under existing and future arrangements. Under President Trump, Washington has made clear that its priority is selling weapons, not acting as the guarantor of Europe’s security. This reality places responsibility on Europe to lead both diplomatically and financially, purchasing the necessary U.S. systems and coordinating their delivery to Ukraine. In this model, the United States provides the hardware, Europe ensures implementation, and Ukraine receives the arms it needs. The result is a fully equipped Ukrainian defense, a stronger European security framework, and an American role that supports without dominating the political process.
- Europe leads the diplomacy. This is a European war, fought on European soil. Europe must own the peace process.
- America supports militarily, not diplomatically. Washington should focus on fulfilling weapons contracts and supplying advanced systems, but not dictate diplomatic terms.
- Why this matters: The Trump administration in particular is a liability to serious peace talks. U.S. domestic politics should not shape the future of Ukraine or Europe’s security.
Step 8: Embed Accountability and Deterrence
The peace plan must include enforcement mechanisms:
- Sanctions Snapback: Automatic re-imposition of sanctions if Russia violates the terms.
- Military Readiness: NATO and European forces must remain positioned to deter renewed aggression.
- Long-Term Monitoring: Independent observers must verify compliance on the ground.
Why This Plan Matters
The lesson of history is simple: appeasement does not bring peace, it invites further aggression. Just as Europe learned from Hitler that concessions only embolden dictators, today we must apply the same lesson with Russia.
By leading with clarity, unity, and resolve, Ukraine and Europe can define the path to peace one that respects sovereignty, punishes aggression, and builds lasting security.
Aggression must never be rewarded. Peace must be based on justice, not submission.