Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Ukrainian officials wrapped up more than four hours of talks in Hallandale Beach, Florida, on Sunday, calling the negotiations productive. The agenda spanned potential elections, territorial arrangements—including possible land swaps—and security guarantees for Ukraine. Rubio emphasized progress but acknowledged complexity: "There's still more work to be done." U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff is now slated to travel to Moscow this week; Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed President Putin would meet Witkoff before Thursday.
The Sunday meeting advances a negotiation arc that has acquired two distinct fronts: Washington's push for a rapid settlement built on a 28-point U.S.-authored framework, and Europe's systematic rewrite of that framework to restore sovereignty norms and enforcement logic. Ukraine is trying to square immediate security needs—air defenses, munitions, personnel—with long-term guarantees that can credibly deter Moscow without NATO membership. The central institutional question is now explicit: can any "NATO-style" guarantee that excludes NATO and lacks treaty ratification be enforceable, or will it repeat the Budapest Memorandum's failure mode?
The U.S. framework and what alarms allies
The 28-point plan reported over the past week outlines a ceasefire, elections within roughly 100 days, territorial adjustments initially envisioning the full cession of Donbas to Russia, and a cap on Ukraine's armed forces at approximately 600,000 troops. The framework bars Ukraine from NATO membership via constitutional amendment, restricts deployment of long-range Western weapons, and opens a Russia–NATO security dialogue. In return, it proposes phased sanctions relief and possible reintegration of Russia into the G8. Security guarantees are described as robust—including snapback sanctions—but the public drafts include no treaty-grade enforcement mechanism. President Trump has characterized the plan as a "concept" subject to fine-tuning.
For European capitals and institutional realists, several elements collide with alliance doctrine. A troop cap below pre-war levels would institutionalize a military asymmetry that invites future coercion. Pre-recognition of territorial changes before compensation or a durable political settlement risks ratifying conquest and undermining the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. The NATO bar, paired with non-treaty guarantees, creates a gap where deterrence rests on executive discretion rather than Article 5 automaticity. Washington cannot unilaterally bind NATO, and a bilateral U.S.–Ukraine guarantee lacking Senate ratification would lack the same credibility. Europe's institutional skepticism is detailed here: https://crisis.zone/washington-s-leaked-ukraine-framework-collides-with-nato-doctrine-and-alliance-cohesion.
Europe's counter-proposal and what it signals
The E3—Britain, France, Germany—responded by drafting a point-by-point revision that takes the U.S. text as a baseline but rewrites the enforcement and sovereignty architecture. Europe's counter-proposal raises the troop cap to 800,000, removes pre-recognition of Russian territorial control, and requires a ceasefire before any territorial negotiations, using the current line of contact as the starting point. It deletes the rigid 100-day election deadline and keeps frozen Russian assets locked until compensation is delivered. The E3 edits are documented in full here: https://crisis.zone/europe-rewrites-trump-s-ukraine-peace-plan-with-higher-troop-cap-and-tougher-sovereignty-terms.
Russia has dismissed Europe's counter-proposal as "completely unconstructive" and indicated it wants to rework the original U.S. plan. That reaction underscores what the E3 edits represent: a different enforcement theory. By preserving a stronger Ukrainian military baseline, refusing to legitimize territorial changes pre-settlement, and retaining asset leverage until compensation, Europe is betting that a more credible deterrent posture at the outset is the only pathway to durability. The counter-proposal also reflects a process concern—that early U.S.–Russia coordination, with limited allied co-drafting, risked undermining transatlantic consensus. The process legitimacy debate is examined here: https://crisis.zone/switzerland-talks-put-europe-s-security-consensus-to-the-test.
Members are reading: Analysis of the enforcement gap that no counter-proposal can fully close without treaty-grade guarantees.
What comes next
The immediate calendar is clear: Witkoff meets Putin and senior Russian officials before Thursday. What remains opaque is whether Moscow will negotiate on the E3-revised framework or demand a return to the original U.S. text. Watch for signals on three fronts: whether the troop cap rises or stays at 600,000; whether territorial language shifts from pre-recognition to ceasefire-first negotiation; and whether the U.S. begins framing guarantees in treaty terms or continues to emphasize executive snapback mechanisms.
Ukraine's domestic transition—with Yermak's exit—adds a variable. A new negotiating structure may recalibrate red lines or reinforce them, depending on internal consensus and battlefield conditions. Zelenskyy's public posture remains cautious, emphasizing reliability over speed. That is a function of institutional memory: non-binding assurances have failed before, and enforcement credibility is now the central issue, not just the shape of a deal.
The Florida talks advanced the process, but the architecture remains contested. A productive meeting and a Moscow trip do not resolve the foundational tension: Washington wants a rapid framework that stops the war; Europe wants a framework that can survive contact with Russian revisionism. Ukraine needs both speed and enforceability, and no draft yet delivers on both. The next week will show whether the U.S. and Europe can converge on a common text, or whether the negotiation splits into parallel tracks with divergent enforcement theories—and divergent prospects for durability.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
