Delegations from European Union (EU) countries, Ukraine and the United States met in Geneva on Sunday to seek common ground on a peace plan unveiled last week and secretly agreed upon by Russia and the United States.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Tuesday that the number of points in the peace plan had been reduced after negotiations.

According to him, the new version of the peace plan takes into account"many things that are right," and it will be possible to continue working on the content of the document.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Ukraine had agreed to the"essence" of a revised peace plan after talks in Geneva.

The Financial Times reports that Ukraine has agreed to reduce the size of its army to 800,000. Media reports have suggested that, after Kyiv agreed to the"essence" of the plan, a few minor details remain to be agreed.

The plan, drafted by the United Kingdom (UK), Germany and France and proposed during negotiations in Geneva, envisages the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.

The document also retains several concessions - a limitation on the size of the defending country's army and a commitment to hold elections, reports The Telegraph.

"When reworking this plan, the Europeans, on the one hand, coordinated the position that the aggressor Russia should make more concessions."

"It is a little sad that this plan prepared by the Europeans is a reaction to the plan prepared by the Americans," A. Roževič noted to the portalLrytas .

Looking at the current situation, the analyst emphasized that it is difficult to imagine that the version of the peace plan proposed by Europe could be approved.

"I really don't think the Russian side will agree to that plan," he explained.

Europe is sad

A. Roževič explained that with its proposal, Europe is trying to convey conditions that are as beneficial to Ukraine as possible.

"We understand that the American position has been expressed repeatedly that both sides must make certain concessions," the expert noted.

Meanwhile, Europe is trying to rework the peace plan so that the aggressor Russia would have to give in more.

The analyst pointed out that this European plan is merely a reaction to the option presented by the US.

"It's basically the American side that sets the pace and tone of the conversation right now, not the Europeans."

"And it's a little sad that even now, after all the events of this year, we, as Europe, are not taking the lead and, for some reason, are rather reacting to the proposals of others," the expert said.

The Telegraph notes that many elements of the European peace plan remain the same - even down to the wording of certain points.

Including the fact that in the event of a peace agreement, Russia would be readmitted to the G7 group - which would have been called the G8 in the event of the country's return.

Under the European plan, NATO would remain viable in war-torn Ukraine. This is an important point that differs significantly from the US and Russian options.

The counter-proposal explicitly states that there is currently no consensus within NATO on Ukraine's membership. This provision is intended to allay Russia's fears that its neighbor could be quickly accepted into the Alliance.

Both proposals contain an identical provision under which Ukraine would receive short-term access to EU markets.

Two reasons

Explaining such European actions, A. Roževič noted that Europe is not one state. It is a number of prominent countries that have different interests.

Although these interests are quite close, they are still different countries.

"It is easier for the US to operate on this side because it is simply one of the most powerful countries in the world and can set that tone," said A. Roževič.

The analyst also identified the demonstration of leadership in resolving very complex and important issues as another reason for reactionary diplomacy.

"But that leadership is not coming from Europe, and that is, as I mentioned, a little sad," he said.

However, there are also positive results to be seen in Europe's actions. A. Roževič emphasized that the UK, France and Germany were able to soften Trump's positions on the Ukraine issue.

"At the same time, it should also be recognized that those reactions and precisely those actions of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, in an attempt to soften D. Trump's positions, in an attempt to round off those complex <...> angles that are currently being raised specifically by the Americans.

We see that Trump's positions on the Ukraine issue have certainly changed. And here we should definitely see some input from the Europeans.

"Although we are not the leaders who initiate talks, it was clear that Europe is also trying, at least not to mediate between Kyiv and Washington, but to help both sides better understand each other's positions," the expert concluded.

Moral and realistic position

A. Roževič pointed out that the plan presented by Europe is essentially quite maximalist - not all of Russia's demands remain.

"We understand that those demands, they are not fair as such. We understand that that war started solely because of Russia's fault and it is Russia that caused this war."

The American position is that both sides must make concessions. In essence, the European plan practically erases all concessions that should be made by the Ukrainian side. <...> Morally speaking, from a moral point of view, this is the right decision – namely, that the aggressor must bear the greatest costs,” the expert explained the European position.

A. Roževič noted that, looking at the real situation, the US sees it all differently – it chooses to put pressure on both sides.

Both the US and Europe agree in their plans that it is necessary to reintegrate Russia into the global economy.

Both documents would return Russia to the G8. However, Europe proposes that sanctions relief be considered “in stages and on a case-by-case basis.”

However, the European proposal removes a clause that would have given the US 50 percent of the profits from frozen Russian assets invested in Ukraine.

There are also good conditions

However, there are certain things positive about the American plan.

"For example, the fact that the limit of the Ukrainian army in peacetime would be reduced to 600 thousand. Ukraine certainly did not have such a large army in peacetime - they had about 200 thousand serving men and women in peacetime. So here that number is increased three times."

"It also talks about certain security guarantees, of course, there is a play on words here. That original American plan talks about US security guarantees for Ukraine. Even this choice of vocabulary signals certain positive changes," the analyst said.

The US peace plan, which A. Roževič spoke about, notes that the size of the Ukrainian army in peacetime would be limited to 600 thousand soldiers. Europe seeks to increase this number to 800 thousand.

If the European proposal were accepted, Ukraine's military would still be one of the largest in the world. By comparison, three years ago, Russia proposed at talks in Istanbul that Ukraine would have only about 85,000 troops in peacetime.

It is extremely important for Ukraine that its Western allies provide it with solid security guarantees in the event of possible Russian aggression.

Both proposals agree that security guarantees are necessary as a deterrent to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The European document describes them as"solid" and the American one as "credible."

The European plan proposes a US guarantee, consistent with NATO's Article 5. It would oblige Washington to treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on an ally. Both plans state that the US would compensate it for providing security guarantees, but the amount is not disclosed.

Therefore, according to A. Roževič, the original 28-point peace plan proposed by the US should not be seen as bringing absolutely no good to Ukraine.

"Also, we've seen some flexibility from the Trump administration. They've openly mentioned that they're willing to talk about certain points."

We saw that yesterday in Geneva, S. Witkoff, together with M. Rubio, met with a high-level Ukrainian delegation.

"The Ukrainians sent it through public channels that it was a very constructive conversation. The situation remains very, very, very unstable and we should probably wait for reactions from different sides," the analyst said.

First reaction

The Kremlin also reacted to the Geneva talks on Monday. Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted that Russia has not yet received any information about the peace talks taking place in Geneva.

"No, we haven't received any information about the negotiations yet," says Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

In addition, D. Peskov revealed that the Russian and US delegations do not plan to meet.

"Of course, we are closely following the media reports, which have been abundant in the last few days, including from Geneva. However, we have not received anything officially yet," he added.

A. Roževič explained that it will now be important to monitor further reactions from the Kremlin. However, the very first comment from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin does not bode well.

"The first Russian reaction that we heard from dictator Putin is that he rejects the plan."

"Because, in his opinion, at least, as one might understand, according to Russian calculations, they will be able to occupy Donbass, with or without an agreement, because they currently have that inertia on the battlefield, even with very heavy losses, but they will sooner or later occupy the territory of Donbass and perhaps even be able to penetrate further," he noted.

It's not just the European plan that's being rejected

The issue of territorial divisions is likely to be the most debated issue in the peace plan proposed by Europe.

Trump's proposal would hand over all of Donbas to Russia and officially recognize the annexation of Crimea. The front lines in the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions would be frozen in the event of peace.

This would mean that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would have to give up even more territory than the Kremlin currently controls.

In its proposal, Europe believes that negotiations on territorial exchanges should begin at the contact line - thus reducing the area of land that Putin could claim.

This means that the unoccupied part of Donbass would remain part of Ukraine – at least until a territorial swap is agreed upon. However, there is a problem – the Kremlin has been making no secret of its targeting of this industrial part of Ukraine for some time now.

"Once future territorial provisions are agreed upon, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these provisions by force," the plan states.

Another problem is that the Russian delegation did not participate in the peace talks in Geneva, where the European peace plan was presented. Common positions were being negotiated in Switzerland, so the question arises - would any agreement be acceptable to the Kremlin?

"We should start by saying that Russia will not only not accept the European proposal - there is no question of that. At the moment, it seems that Russia will not even accept the original American proposal."

And here is the most important aspect. <...> He (V. Putin - ed. post) was not talking about the European position, but specifically about that American plan. Which, at least as we know from public sources, was most likely prepared with some Russian help," the expert said.

A. Rozhevich believes that the most important negotiations are not between Ukraine and Russia. They are between Ukraine and its Western allies. The main question is what these states can offer to the war-torn country

"The main and fundamental question that we have seen, the evolution of this issue, over these years, is what we, as the West, can provide to Ukraine."

What kind of guarantees would it be, what kind of assistance would it be, would it be long-term, sustainable assistance <...> both military and humanitarian, specifically rebuilding a country devastated by war. Couldn't we provide that?

"This is precisely the aspect that direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, even at this time, are not as fundamental as the American, general conversations of the allies with the Ukrainians themselves and our own understanding of what we can really provide to Ukraine," the expert summarized.