On November 27, 2025, a commentary titled “Europe Wants Endless War in Ukraine. Trump Should Walk Away.” published by National Security Journal argued that European powers have sabotaged earlier U.S.–Russia peace efforts, preferring to wage a protracted proxy war rather than accept a negotiated settlement.
- Background: The 2025 Peace Push and the European Reaction
- The Argument: Europe Prefers War by Proxy
- The Counterview: Why Critics Say Bandow’s Prescription Is Dangerous
- 1. Rewarding Aggression Threatens European Security
- 2. Ukraine’s Sovereignty and Defense Capacity Would Be Undermined
- 3. A Withdrawal by the U.S. Would Fracture Transatlantic Unity
- Strategic Implications — for Ukraine, NATO, and Transatlantic Balance
- What to Watch Next
The essay by columnist Doug Bandow critiques the recently leaked 28-point peace plan sponsored by the administration of Donald Trump, concluding that Europe — unwilling to rearm or deploy troops — is deliberately prolonging the war to weaken Russia, even at the cost of grievous human toll on Ukraine.
The author urges Washington to withdraw support for Kyiv and force Europe and Ukraine to own “the consequences of their war effort.”
Background: The 2025 Peace Push and the European Reaction
Since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Western unity — anchored in U.S. leadership — has sustained Kyiv via military, economic, and humanitarian support. But in late 2025, Washington introduced a draft settlement to end hostilities. The leaked 28-point plan, reportedly drawn up with limited input from Kyiv, would require Ukraine to cede substantial territory (including contested areas of Donbas), cap its military at 600,000 troops, and abandon NATO ambitions.
European governments — alongside Kyiv — balked. EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas warned the proposal rewards aggression, warns it undermines future deterrence, and leaves Ukraine dangerously exposed.
In response, U.S. and Ukrainian officials convened in Geneva on November 24 to refine the framework. While they described the outcome as an “updated peace framework,” serious divisions remain.
The Argument: Europe Prefers War by Proxy
In his editorial, Bandow claims the revised U.S. peace proposal — though “ugly” — reflected a pragmatic path to end the war. He argues European leaders killed it, “hollowing out” the deal and demanding conditions Moscow would never accept. According to him, the result is not a push for a durable peace, but a continuing war waged with Ukrainian corpses — effectively a proxy struggle against Russia.
Bandow asserts Europe willingly avoids rearming or deploying its forces, relying instead on American support to supply Kyiv — allowing European capitals to preserve domestic budgets while inflicting damage on Russia.
He suggests the only realistic way out is for Washington to walk away, leaving Europe and Ukraine to decide their own fate. Otherwise, he argues, the U.S. risks indefinitely funding a devastating war with no end in sight.
The Counterview: Why Critics Say Bandow’s Prescription Is Dangerous
1. Rewarding Aggression Threatens European Security
European allies contend that forcing Ukraine to cede territory to Russia would set a dangerous precedent: it would signal that territorial conquest can be legitimized through diplomacy, undermining principles that have underpinned European stability since World War II.
Such a deal could destabilize the entire regional security architecture — not just for Ukraine, but for other states near Russia’s sphere of influence.
2. Ukraine’s Sovereignty and Defense Capacity Would Be Undermined
Critics argue that capping Ukraine’s military and excluding it from NATO would leave Kyiv permanently vulnerable to Russian re-engagement — with limited deterrence and insufficient guarantees.
Many Europeans see a robust Ukrainian defense as essential not only for Ukraine’s future, but for blocking Russian ambitions that could threaten their own borders.
3. A Withdrawal by the U.S. Would Fracture Transatlantic Unity
If Washington pulls back, burden-sharing would shift heavily onto Europe — economically and militarily. Many observers doubt European governments are ready to increase defense spending and deploy troops at the scale required to substitute U.S. support.
Furthermore, abandoning Ukraine now could damage long-term U.S. credibility, weakening deterrence across other contested regions where American leadership still matters.
Strategic Implications — for Ukraine, NATO, and Transatlantic Balance
If the U.S. adopts Bandow’s advice, several implications follow:
- Ukraine risks being forced into a settlement under severe duress, likely entailing territorial loss, reduced defense capacity, and diminished sovereignty.
- European allies would emerge as the main — possibly sole — supporters of Ukraine, increasing pressure to boost defence budgets yet again. Failure to do so could fracture NATO cohesion and create strategic rifts.
- Russia may view de facto American withdrawal as victory, emboldening further territorial ambitions or aggressive posture beyond Ukraine.
- A precedent may be set that aggression can be remunerated through diplomacy, potentially destabilizing other regions in Europe and beyond.
On the other hand, some realistic observers accept that with declining domestic support in the U.S. for open-ended war, and rising war exhaustion in Europe, a negotiated settlement — if properly structured — may indeed become the only viable path forward.
What to Watch Next
- Whether the reworked U.S.–Ukraine framework emerging from Geneva produces concrete proposals acceptable to Kyiv and its European allies.
- Whether European states commit significantly more resources — financially and militarily — to fill any gap left by U.S. disengagement.
- Russian reaction: will the Kremlin respond by escalating operations, or by entering serious negotiations?
- The long-term fate of European security architecture: will NATO survive a potential U.S. pullback, or re-define itself under heavier European burden-sharing?
