European leaders and a self-described “coalition of the willing” moved quickly to blunt a U.S. plan for ending the war in Ukraine that has roiled diplomatic circles at the G20 summit in Johannesburg, exposing a transatlantic fracture over how — and on whose terms — the conflict should end.
French President Emmanuel Macron said the 30 countries backing Kyiv will hold a video meeting Tuesday to coordinate a response after talks in Geneva on the U.S. proposal, which has drawn sharp criticism from European capitals for appearing to favour Russian demands. “We will hold a meeting Tuesday afternoon to coordinate on this point, and to see what progress will be made in the Geneva negotiations in coming days, and to be able to take new initiatives,” Macron said on the margins of the summit.
- Advertisement -
The U.S. plan, as described by officials at the G20, urges concessions that include Ukrainian territorial adjustments and limits on Kyiv’s armed forces. European leaders say those elements risk rewarding Moscow and leaving Ukraine exposed. Macron warned that if Ukraine were to reduce its army as proposed, Russia would “betray” its promise and “come back.” His pronouncement crystallized a broader European fear: that any negotiated peace that strips Kyiv of security capabilities or territory could merely freeze in place a strategic win for Russia.
Against that backdrop, national security advisers from France, Britain and Germany — the so-called E3 — are due to meet with European Union, U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Geneva to examine the U.S. proposal and an alternative European draft that Berlin says was developed on the basis of Washington’s outline and formally shared with Kyiv and the U.S. The presence in Geneva of U.S. delegations led by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside an arriving Ukrainian team, underlines the high stakes.
European diplomats framed the Geneva talks as less a capitulation to Washington than an attempt to salvage a multilateral outcome that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and deters future Russian aggression. The coalition’s planned video call intends to shape what Macron described as “new initiatives” should Geneva fail to produce terms acceptable to Kyiv and its backers.
The debate in Johannesburg exposed fissures beyond the Ukraine file, amplifying concerns about the future coherence of international institutions. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin used his G20 address to call for renewed efforts to end the “illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia” and to stress Ireland’s commitment to multilateralism, a point he tied to a modernized World Trade Organization and mechanisms for sovereign debt relief. Those references came as the G20 struggled to present a united front on climate, trade and security amid the absence of the United States’ full engagement.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking on the eve of the summit, pivoted to another recurring theme at Johannesburg: the long-term marginalization of Africa from the institutions that shape global governance. His remarks about Africa’s “double victim” status — first under colonialism, then during the creation of postwar institutions — echoed wider calls at the summit for greater representation and for tangible investment. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a €7 billion pledge to expand renewable energy across Africa, part of a visible push in Johannesburg to marshal climate finance and accelerate energy access.
The U.S. posture in Johannesburg has complicated that messaging. A boycott of the summit and public critiques of South Africa by U.S. officials over perceived positions that diverge from Washington’s have created diplomatic friction. Those tensions are compounded by a cleft on climate policy: the G20 majority in Johannesburg emphasized scaling up renewables, while the U.S. presidency represented at the summit has embraced a markedly different domestic energy agenda.
That schism matters for Ukraine. A coordinated approach that mixes deterrence, economic pressure and credible security guarantees — the track many European capitals advocate — requires a unified Western front. If the United States pushes a unilateral settlement model that excludes Kyiv’s consent or reduces its long-term defensive capacity, Europeans fear the coalition that has sustained Ukraine could splinter, and that Russia would exploit any diminution of Ukrainian capability to press new demands.
For Kyiv, the stakes are existential. European officials point out that territorial concessions or limitations on armed forces without robust, verifiable guarantees and international enforcement mechanisms would not secure peace but would invite renewed aggression. Kyiv has signalled its reluctance to accept any deal that undermines sovereignty, while its allies weigh whether diplomatic compromise or continued material support offers the better path to a durable resolution.
Geneva’s talks will test whether Western diplomacy can reconcile two competing imperatives: ending a war that has exacted tremendous human and economic costs, and preserving the principle that sovereign borders and the right to self-defense cannot be bartered away. The coming days will also clarify whether European leaders can convert their dissatisfaction into a concrete diplomatic alternative or whether transatlantic dissonance will leave Ukraine negotiating from a position of diminishing leverage.
Beyond the immediate contest over texts and meetings, Johannesburg revealed a broader contest over the architecture of global governance: who sets the terms of peace, who funds reconstruction, and whether a rules-based multilateral system can withstand unilateral maneuvers by powerful states. The European pushback and the coalition’s quick mobilization indicate that many U.S. allies are unwilling to accept a settlement that consigns Ukraine to long-term vulnerability. How they translate that political will into coordinated policy — military aid, sanctions, diplomatic pressure and legal guarantees — will determine whether a negotiated settlement secures peace or merely pauses the next round of conflict.
As delegations move to Geneva, the calculus is clear: any outcome that seeks a lasting end to the war must anchor itself in Ukrainian consent, enforceable guarantees and a credible deterrent to prevent future aggression. Absent that triad, the international community risks substituting a fragile armistice for a durable peace.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
