Ukraine's Pursuit of a "NATO-style Shield" ─ Diverging Views Between the United States and Europe

Ukraine Seeks "NATO-Style Shield" — A Counter to the U.S. Proposal Reflects True Intentions

Late November 2025, Geneva. As the war with Russia enters its fourth year, the intentions of the United States, Europe, and Ukraine itself are clashing intensely over a single "revised" document.

According to a Bloomberg scoop reprinted in various international media, including Canada's Financial Post, Ukraine and major European countries have prepared a counter-proposal to the "28-point peace plan" presented by the United States. The main point is that while the U.S. plan is based on "concessions to Russia,"

it seeks to start negotiations based on the "current front line" after the cessation of hostilities
, calls for a NATO Article 5-style collective defense guarantee from the United States, and demands that
Russia's frozen assets be used for Ukraine's reconstruction and reparations

.

These three pillars are the foundation of the proposal.news.bgov.com+2Reddit+2

This "counter-proposal" has sparked significant debate on X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit. In this article,

1. what exactly is the U.S. "28-point plan"?

2. how does the European and Ukrainian counter-proposal aim to change it?

3. what is the significance of the "NATO-style shield" in terms of security?

4. the pros and cons flying around on social media and the world's true intentions behind them

will be organized and explained for Japanese readers.

1. The Trump Administration's "28-Point Peace Plan" — Ukraine Faces a Choice Between "Dignity or Alliance"

According to sources like The Washington Post, the U.S. administration presented a 28-point ceasefire and peace plan, drafted by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, to President Zelensky in mid-November.The Washington Post

The main contents can be roughly summarized as follows:

• Significant territorial concessions

  • Withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from key areas in Donetsk Oblast

  • Recognition of Crimea, Luhansk, and other regions under Russian control as "de facto Russian territory"The Washington Post

• Reduction of military forces

  • Reducing Ukrainian military personnel from the current 800,000–850,000 to 600,000The Washington Post

• Renunciation of NATO and prohibition of foreign troops

  • Explicitly stating in the Ukrainian constitution that there is no intention to join NATO

  • Prohibiting NATO or other foreign troops from being stationed in Ukraine post-warThe Washington Post

• Handling of Russian assets

  • Directing $100 billion of frozen Russian government assets to a U.S.-led Ukraine reconstruction investment fund, with the U.S. receiving half of the profits

  • Gradual return of the remaining assets to RussiaReuters

• Invisible "Security Umbrella"

  • Ukraine is to be given "reliable security guarantees," but the text contains few specific obligations or mechanisms for automatic military intervention.The Washington Post

In essence, the structure is "if you give up significant territory and military power, we might consider future security and economic support."

In response to this plan, President Zelensky stated in a televised address, "Ukraine is now in one of the most difficult moments in its history," and reportedly said, **"We are being forced to choose between losing our dignity or losing a key ally."**The Washington Post

The U.S. side seeks words of gratitude, expressing dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of it. President Trump has repeatedly hinted at gratitude and subordination, stating that if no gratitude is shown, "some sort of deal will eventually have to be accepted."The Washington Post

2. The European E3 and Ukraine's Counter-Proposal — "NATO-Style Shield" and Frozen Assets

The first to strongly oppose the U.S. plan were the European E3 (three countries) — the UK, France, and Germany. Before the Geneva talks, they drafted a revised draft, putting red marks on almost all articles of the U.S. plan.Reuters

The revision points can be summarized into the following four aspects.

(1) Military force cap set to "wartime specifications"

The U.S. plan capped the Ukrainian military at 600,000, but the European plan proposes a cap of **"800,000 in peacetime."**Reuters

Although it is expressed as "peacetime," in reality, the possibility of fully normalizing relations with Russia is low, and it is seen as an aim to secure "800,000 as a deterrent."

(2) Territorial negotiations start from the "current front line"

The U.S. plan preemptively considered some areas as "de facto Russian territory," setting the starting point of negotiations in favor of Russia. In contrast, the European plan states,
"Territorial exchange negotiations will start from the line of contact at the time hostilities cease,"
changing the framework to not recognize Russia's "first come, first served" approach.Reuters

Furthermore, Moscow's demand to hand over parts of the east that are not even occupied is explicitly rejected.Reddit

(3) "NATO Article 5-style" security

The most symbolic aspect is the security clause. The European-Ukrainian plan seeks

the United States to provide security similar to NATO Article 5

.Reddit

NATO Article 5 is the core of collective defense, stating that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members, potentially leading to automatic military intervention in the worst-case scenario. In contrast, the previously reported U.S. "NATO-style" guarantee is that

• Ukraine's security would become a "serious concern" in the event of a large-scale attack

• However, whether military force would actually be used isat the discretion of the president at the time

, a rather vague expression criticized by experts as "Budapest Memorandum 2.0."New York Post

The counter-proposal seeks to fill this ambiguity, addressing Ukraine's fundamental concern of **"Will you really retaliate with us if we are attacked?"**

(4) Russian frozen assets maintained as "reparation resources"

The European plan explicitly states that Russian sovereign assets will remain frozen until Russia compensates for war damages, and these funds will be used for Ukraine's reconstruction and reparations. It does not recognize the U.S. plan's scheme where the U.S. receives half of the profits from a U.S.-led fund and returns the remainder to Russia.Reuters

This aligns with the EU's ongoing policy of using Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction and seeks to materialize the international legal penalty for sovereignty violations.

3. What the "NATO-Style Shield" Means — The Trauma of Budapest and the Current State of European Defense

So, what is the significance of the "NATO-style shield" that Ukraine seeks?

The Failure of the Budapest Memorandum

In 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to give up its large stockpile of nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet era in exchange for promises of **"respect for territorial integrity"** from the U.S., UK, and Russia. However, this promise was easily broken with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022.

The memorandum contained no explicit defense obligations, resulting in vague responses like sanctions and UN consultations. Among the Ukrainian public, there is a strong sentiment of

"Never again will we trust a paper guarantee."
.

##