European leaders have reacted with alarm to reports of a draft U.S.-Russia “peace” framework that would require Ukraine to hand over control of its eastern Donbas region, significantly scale back its military, and make other major concessions. The leaked 28-point proposal, first reported by multiple outlets on Thursday, has sparked a fresh crisis in Western diplomacy as Ukraine evaluates its options.

According to reports, the plan would force Ukraine to recognise Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (Donbas) as de facto Russian territory. It would also impose a dramatic reduction of Ukraine’s armed forces to 600,000 troops, nearly half of its current force, while limiting its access to certain classes of weapons.

Western military assistance could be scaled back entirely under the deal, and future Western deployments to Ukraine—such as the Franco-British “coalition of the willing”—would be banned.

On cultural lines, the proposal reportedly calls for Ukraine to grant official status to the Russian language and recognise the Russian Orthodox Church, raising further concerns in Europe about a creeping “russification.”

In Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a solemn warning: the country may soon face an impossible decision. In a televised address, he framed the choice as one between preserving Ukrainian dignity and sovereignty, or accepting a deal that could be seen as capitulation.

Zelenskyy met with U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, emphasising that any peace agreement must respect Ukraine’s core principles of statehood, public safety, and justice.

Kyiv’s assessment of the U.S.-drafted proposal continues at a technical level, and officials say they are carefully reviewing every clause. Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council, reiterated that Ukraine’s key priorities remain its sovereignty, the protection of its people, and securing a just peace.

European capitals, meanwhile, are pushing back hard. EU foreign ministers have called for a more inclusive negotiation process, arguing that any peace plan cannot be shaped solely by Washington and Moscow.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, warned that rewarding an aggressor with territory could set a dangerous global precedent. “If you just give in to the aggression, then you invite more aggression,” she said.

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot echoed the sentiment, arguing that peace must be both “just” and “durable,” not a surrender by Ukraine.

Poland’s former foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, also speaking publicly, expressed concern about limiting Ukraine’s military capacity: he called such provisions “unacceptable” and warned against undermining Kyiv’s long-term security.

European military voices have joined the alarm. One retired senior British general, Sir Richard Barrons, described the proposal as a “disaster” for European security, arguing that Russia could emerge from any deal emboldened and unchallenged.

Without robust guarantees or a credible role for European forces, he said, Ukraine would remain “hostage to Russia.”

For its part, Ukraine has called on its partners to respect its red lines, even as it engages in technical discussions with the United States.

In his statement, Umerov stressed that Ukraine expects “proper attitude” toward its position and that any agreement must be consistent with its constitutional principles.

The draft also includes vague promises of “robust security guarantees,” but how enforceable those guarantees would be is unclear.

European diplomats have repeatedly asked what exactly these guarantees would look like—and whether they would truly prevent a future Russian aggression.

Analysts warn that the fallout from this plan could be profound. If Ukraine were to accept such terms, it might undermine both European unity and NATO’s credibility on the eastern flank. The West’s ability to defend its principles would be tested—and the message sent to other powers could reshape the future of European security architecture.