Ukraine’s Future - Universal Rights or Spheres of Influence Rebranded

Two peace proposals now frame the future of Ukraine. Washington's draft plan focuses on concessions and neutrality, while Brussels has unveiled a new framework built around the principle that "borders cannot be changed by force". At first glance, they seem to represent different strategies. In reality, they reflect two competing ways the world has thought about security for nearly a century.

The first is universalism, the idea that every state, large or small, enjoys the same rights. It emerged after 1945 and became central to European integration and the UN system: sovereignty is protected by law, borders are inviolable, and countries choose their alliances freely. The second is the sphere-of-influence model, which predates the Cold War but dominated it. Under this logic, powerful states organise their security by controlling the orientation of neighbouring countries. Smaller states are treated not as equals, but as tools for balancing power. Stability is achieved not by equality, but by limiting others.

Ukraine now sits at the crossroads of these two visions. The American plan echoes the logic of a limited sovereignty designed to stabilise a large rival. The European plan invokes universal rules but struggles to show how they will be defended. Peace will depend not on which proposal comes first, but on whether Europe and the United States choose a security system based on universal rights or a settlement that quietly preserves spheres of influence.

The U.S.: Sovereignty Negotiated

Washington now speaks the language of sovereignty with clarity. The Trump initiative presents Ukraine's independence as non-negotiable, a notable shift from older Cold War frameworks where small states were openly traded in pursuit of balance. Yet this affirmation comes with a condition: Ukraine's sovereignty must be exercised within limits that stabilise Russia.

The U.S. proposal treats neutrality, restricted military alignment, and a territorial "freeze" as pragmatic tools to secure peace. These constraints do not deny sovereignty; they redefine how it can operate. Ukraine would remain a sovereign state, but one whose choices are regulated to protect a larger rival's sense of vulnerability. In current diplomacy, sovereignty is being interpreted in a way that serves Russian insecurity, rather than Ukraine's autonomy.

This is not appeasement in the European style, it is deal-making. The U.S. does not seek to calm Russia's fear; it seeks to bargain with it. In this logic, sovereignty becomes a variable for negotiating stability, rather than a principle to be upheld regardless of cost. A settlement built around concessions may limit conflict, but it risks rewarding coercion and embedding instability. What is offered is not law-based security, but balance dressed as peace.

The EU: Sovereignty Declared, but Unsecured

The European Union's new plan positions itself firmly on universal ground. It demands that "borders cannot be changed by force" and that Ukraine alone determines its alliances. This language reflects the post-1945 belief that peace comes from equal rights and legal norms. Europe does not propose neutrality or territorial compromise as instruments of stability. It rejects the idea of negotiating sovereignty.

Yet its proposal lacks the mechanism necessary to enforce what it proclaims. The EU asserts rights without specifying how they will be protected if they are contested. Its plan offers political principles but stops short of binding security guarantees, clear military commitments or an enforcement mechanism capable of deterring renewed aggression. Sovereignty is defended morally, not materially.

The result is a paradox. Europe refuses to treat Ukraine as a buffer, but it does not provide the means to ensure that Ukraine can avoid becoming one. Universalism becomes vocabulary rather than strategy. If the U.S. risks reducing sovereignty to a bargaining chip, the EU risks elevating it into a symbol without substance. Neither approach yet provides the architecture needed to turn rights into security.

What Peace Requires: Enforced Rules and a New Security Design

Peace in Ukraine cannot be built on declarations. It must be secured by institutions capable of defending the principles they claim to uphold it. If sovereignty is universal, it requires two commitments: it must be protected by enforceable guarantees, and it must exist within a security architecture that does not reduce smaller states to tools of balance. 

The first obligation is enforcement. Sovereignty cannot depend on the goodwill of a neighbour or the restraint of a great power. It must be backed by binding commitments: security guarantees, defence cooperation, sanctions with automatic triggers, and mechanisms that are activated by breaches rather than negotiated after them. Europe cannot defend the principle that borders cannot be changed by force without defining how that principle will be enforced when it is violated. A rule without protection is not a rule; it is a hope.

The second obligation is design. Europe cannot treat Ukraine's security as a choice between NATO accession and a buffer zone. A stable continent requires a security framework that is neither an exclusive alliance nor a negotiated concession. Russia must have a place in European security, but not a privilege over the autonomy of its neighbours. Ukraine must have a place as an equal state, not as a corridor whose defence depends on the mood or comfort of stronger actors.

Such a system would not demand neutrality or impose it. It would not trade rights for balance or defend rights without the means to uphold them. It would embed Ukraine's choices within a regional architecture that protects sovereignty as a shared standard, not a variable. Enforcement gives universalism its credibility; design gives it its durability.

A settlement built on these principles would make sovereignty real. It would protect Ukraine not because it is a useful partner or a strategic buffer, but because its rights are indivisible from the rules that keep Europe safe. Peace requires that Ukraine be sovereign not in a way that appeases Russian insecurity, but in a way that ends the need to appease it at all.

Image: Flickr/President Of Ukraine

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.