Wrangle over the 28-point plan
Germany, France and the UK seek to change key elements of the 28-point ceasefire plan in Geneva talks with the US – not least to promote their arms industries.
BERLIN/WASHINGTON (own report) – Germany, France and the United Kingdom are seeking to comprehensively alter core elements of the 28-point plan for a Ukraine ceasefire at talks with the United States in Geneva. On the one hand, the European intervention is about how exactly the Russian foreign assets frozen in the EU will be used. On the other, it is about loosening any restrictions imposed on the future strength of Ukrainian armed forces. While in official statements Berlin and Brussels claim to be promoting Ukraine’s interests, what is clearly at stake are the interests of Germany and the EU. The EU plan to use frozen Russian assets to arm Ukraine would mean more weapons exports from European producers as the bloc further expands its defence industries. The 28-point plan provides, however, for the funds to be spent on economic reconstruction in Ukraine. The American plan also contains restrictions on the size and capacity of Ukrainian forces. This point is also likely to conflict with the aspirations of several European states for profitable arms exports to Kiev. If Berlin and Brussels succeed in shaping the 28-point plan to fit their demands it is expected to fail. The war would then grind on.
‘A ghost debate’
The current plan for a ceasefire in Ukraine would thwart key projects of Germany and the other major NATO states in Europe in several respects. Firstly, a “coalition of the willing” led by France and the United Kingdom announced at the beginning of September its intention to station troops on Ukrainian territory on a permanent basis in order to secure a ceasefire (german-foreign-policy.com reported [1]). The presence of Western European boots on the ground would exert long-term military pressure on Russia. It can be seen as part of a power struggle against Moscow that the major Western European states are determined to wage. Experts with a certain distance from the operational politics of governments stated from the outset that such an intervention would make a ceasefire virtually impossible. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former top diplomat and currently President of the Munich Security Conference Foundation Board, has argued, for example, that since Moscow would never agree to the deployment the whole discussion amounted merely to an “unnecessary ghost debate” that would only prolong and widen the conflict.[2] The truth of this critique has now been confirmed by the Americans: the 28-point plan explicitly excludes the presence of foreign forces on Ukrainian territory.[3]
Russian foreign assets
The second problem for the big European states is that the ceasefire plan undermines their own plans for massive rearmament – in several respects. For one thing, the EU wants to grab not only the interest income accrued on Russia’s foreign assets located in Europe but also much of the assets themselves, and transfer the money to Ukraine. This would be an illegal move. Belgium, which is home to the largest deposit of Russian assets, has opposed the plan since it would be most affected by compensation claims expected from Moscow. However, pressure on the Belgian government to stop blocking the expropriation is mounting. The EU plans to withdraw 140 billion euros and make these funds available to Kiev, primarily to cover its military expenses (german-foreign-policy.com reported [4]). The move would enable Ukraine to procure more weapons from Western European manufacturers in particular. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ramped up the pressure last Monday on a visit to the Villacoublay air base near Paris. He declared that he was counting on being able to draw on Russian assets in one way or another to finance the purchase of one hundred Rafale fighter jets, drones, SAMP/T air defence systems and other expensive French-made military hardware.[5]
Reconstruction instead of rearmament
These arms sales would be ruled out under the first version of the 28-point plan. It stipulates that Ukraine will receive – with explicit Russian consent and thus legally – 100 billion US dollars from Russian foreign assets and must invest this money in US-led reconstruction projects. Half of any profits resulting from the investment shall be transferred to the United States.[6] The EU should commit to providing a further 100 billion dollars, again for reconstruction. But the EU leadership won’t go along with this part of the plan. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen demanded at the weekend that “the central role of the European Union in securing peace for Ukraine” must be “fully reflected” in the ceasefire plan. According to a well-connected journalist, this can be understood “as a reference to the use of Russian Central Bank assets frozen in the EU”.[7]
Limits on the arms industry
An end to the war would also impact negatively on the emerging German drone industry. Not only is it largely financed by drone exports to Ukraine, but it also benefits technologically from close cooperation with the Ukrainian armed forces at the front. Drone makers can draw directly on the experience gained in the drone war and incorporate this directly into the further development of weapon systems. It is on this basis that defence industry companies hope to achieve and maintain a leading position on the world market (german-foreign-policy.com reported [8]). Under the 28-point plan it is unclear to what extent the German producers will be allowed to remain in cooperation with the Ukrainian armed forces or have any production sites inside Ukraine if there is an agreed end to the fighting. It all depends on the wording of the restrictions on Ukrainian armament. The current version of the plan is only an initial draft. It is likely that a final plan would rule out long-range weapon systems. And it is unclear whether the planned delivery of a hundred Rafale fighter jets would be permitted under the terms of a 28-point plan acceptable to Moscow. For Dassault, one of France’s leading defence industry contractors, a jet export deal would generate substantial profits.
‘Unacceptable’
Representatives of the German, French and UK governments went to Geneva yesterday, Sunday, with all these concerns in mind. Their task is to influence the negotiations being conducted primarily between the US and Ukraine. The US sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to the talks. Ukraine, for its part, is represented by the head of the presidential office, Andriy Yermak. Günter Sautter, foreign and military policy advisor to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, is participating in the talks on behalf of Berlin. Details of possible interim results have not yet been disclosed. But Merz has explicitly described the 28-point plan’s restraints on the use of Russian foreign assets as “unacceptable”. The Russian assets are located in the EU, which is why the US cannot itself dispose of them directly, as Merz noted. However, it is not clear why the EU should be able to dispose of them either. They are, after all, Russian property. The German Chancellor also objects to the demand, formulated in the draft ceasefire agreement, for the EU to pay an additional 100 billion dollars towards reconstruction of Ukraine. It is, he said, “unacceptable.”[9]
[1], [2] See: High-risk security guarantees.
[3] Barak Ravid, Dave Lawler: Trump’s full 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan. axios.com 20.11.2025.
[4] See: Russisches Staatsvermögen im Visier.
[5] Michaela Wiegel: Finanzierung ungeklärt. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 18.11.2025.
[6] Barak Ravid, Dave Lawler: Trump’s full 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan. axios.com 20.11.2025.
[7] Mit dem Herzchen in der Hand. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 24.11.2025.
[8] See: The Drone Crisis (II).
[9] “Sehr produktives Treffen”. tagesspiegel.de 23.11.2025.
