In October 2025, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict entered its fourth year, with U.S. President Donald Trump proposing a "frontier line" scheme, suggesting that Ukraine cut off Donbass in exchange for a ceasefire, while on the other hand, the British-French-led coalition of 30 countries is preparing to build a peacekeeping force with the intention of rapid entry after the ceasefire.
The Trump administration’s “land-to-peace” claim that the Russian military has already controlled most of Donbass, rather than line up, each withdraw, and stop. This way is in line with Trump’s consistent pragmatic logic: regardless of the process, only look at the outcome.
At present, Russia's control in Donbass has exceeded 70%. This proposal of "maintaining the status quo" is tantamount to making Ukraine recognize a fait accompli. The Zelensky government cannot easily accept this arrangement.
The Ukraine Constitution clearly stipulates that any territorial change must be subject to a referendum, and the latest polls show that most Ukraine people are firmly opposed to ceding territory.
Russia's response to this proposal is ostensibly positive, but the real plot behind it is unclear. The so-called "two for one" plan proposed by Putin's government seems willing to back down on other fronts, but in fact it is intended to consolidate the long-term control of Donbass.
Russia's proactive position on the battlefield gives it the capital to put forward conditions at the negotiating table rather than accept compromises.
The United States is not monolithic. Even within the White House, there are differences on Trump's plan. Some analysts believe that this "rapid hemostasis" approach may cover up greater strategic hidden dangers.
Would the next step be to target more territory if Russia reassembles after acquiring Donbass? this concern is causing some U.S. lawmakers to be cautious about Trump’s proposals.
Both France and Germany have expressed concerns that “division for peace” will set a precedent for future arms expansion. At the same time, the US-Russian summit in Budapest was forced to be postponed because of the overly disparate positions of the parties, highlighting the degree of controversy in the international community.
Britain and France take action
Compared with the "fast transaction" of the United States, Europe chose "multilateral intervention". A 30-nation alliance led by Britain and France is planning to form a peacekeeping force, which is planned to be deployed to eastern Ukraine as soon as the ceasefire is reached.
The force has a budget of more than 100 million pounds, funds have been initially provided, and preparations have begun.
The British Defense Minister openly said that the peacekeeping forces will carry out missions such as air patrol, mining, logistical support and tactical training of the Ukrainian army.
The troops will adopt a rotational command mechanism, with the French general in charge first and the British command later. Through this action, Europe hopes to demonstrate its independent ability in regional security affairs.
The operation did not invite the United States to participate and was a test of "strategic autonomy" by Europe. Since Trump came to power, the positions of Europe and the United States on the Ukraine issue have gradually widened. This move by Britain and France is not only a response to the United States 'idea of "withdrawing the front line", but also filling the security vacuum after the United States gradually turns to the Asia-Pacific region.
But this peacekeeping plan was not without problems. Internal opinions diverged in NATO, Germany was cautious, Italy was reservative about sending troops, and Hungary even explicitly opposed any military intervention. Multinational unification meant increased difficulty in coordination and actual deployment efficiency was concerned.
Russia openly opposes any form of NATO troops. Former President Dmitry Medvedev has already spoken that any NATO troops entering Ukraine "under the banner of peacekeeping" will be regarded as a direct threat to Russia's security. Russia's tough stance may lead to a diplomatic deadlock before the deployment of the peacekeeping force.
In terms of force configuration, the simulation of the European Think Tank showed that for effective stabilization in eastern Ukraine, at least 100,000 troops would be needed to be deployed, but the currently deployable force is not larger than 30,000 and is still restricted by logistics and command systems.
Ukraine's choice
Ukraine is standing at the most difficult crossroads. The war has not stopped, diplomatic pressure, economic recession, and public opinion is stirring. Behind every choice is a price.
Militarily, Ukraine suffered significant losses in the summer of 2025. Russian forces advanced rapidly in the Donbass region, claiming control of 5,000 square kilometers of new territory. Though the Ukrainian forces took effective defense in the direction of Dnipro, blocking further south, the overall front remained on the guard.
Economically, Ukraine has suffered heavy losses. The Donbas region, which accounted for one-third of GDP before the war, has basically fallen, and pillar industries such as coal, steel, and machinery manufacturing have been completely paralyzed. The total national economic loss is estimated to have exceeded US $750 billion. Energy and infrastructure have been hit more frequently. Winter is approaching, and energy security issues are imminent.
Financial pressures cannot be ignored either. The Ukrainian government is burdened with 18 billion euros of foreign debt. Although international aid continues, it is far behind the speed of war consumption. Once Western aid slows due to differences, Ukraine could risk fiscal collapse.
Politically, the Zelensky government is under tremendous pressure. On October 17, he visited Washington to try to muster more support. However, during the talks, Trump directly expressed his support for the land ceding plan and hinted that future assistance would be linked to Uzbekistan's attitude. This puts the Ukraine government in a passive position. On the one hand, it has to maintain relations with the West, and on the other hand, it cannot violate the domestic constitution and public opinion.
The upcoming U.S.-Russian Budapest summit, which did not arrange a formal speech for Ukraine, this “partisan decision” way makes Ukraine seem marginalized in reality; what Trump wants is a quick settlement agreement, preferably ended in the electoral cycle;
Britain and France value rules and procedures more, and even if they are slower, there must be a reasonable framework; what Ukraine wants is dignity, sovereignty and security, but at the moment these three seem to be out of reach. If "changing borders by force" becomes a reality, it will reshape the entire international norm. In the future, the Taiwan Strait, the South Caucasus, and the Horn of Africa will refer to this "Donbas Agreement."
The preparation of the European peacekeeping force was an institutional response. Although its strength was limited, it at least made a gesture in principle. However, the United States 'division plan exposes contempt for the rule system in addition to efficiency.
Ukraine appears to be the protagonist, and the real end of this war will not be decided by a paper agreement, but depends on whether the parties really want a fair, stable and sustainable European security framework.
Source of information:
28 September 2025
The article noted that Trump proposed an informal "frontier line" proposal and believed that a local ceasefire with Russia was more pragmatic than continued military assistance.September 10, 2025
Abstract: Britain and France announced at the Paris meeting that they would convene 30 countries to form a rapid deployment peacekeeping force with an estimated budget of more than 100 million pounds. Tasks include border patrols and post-war reconstruction support.