The White House ultimatum to Ukraine to accept the Kremlin-dictated capitulation plan or lose essential American support is the most shameful proposal from an American president since the Yalta Agreement between Stalin and Roosevelt which doomed millions of Central and Eastern Europeans to Soviet subjection.

It will send shivers of foreboding through the Baltic states and Poland, who recall the hollowness of promises of western support as they found themselves powerless before the might of the Red Army.

Promises to Ukraine for American-backed security as a trade-off for halving their own army, giving up a fifth of their national territory, accepting an uncertain status of ‘sovereignty’ under Russian hegemony, have as much credibility as Stalin’s promises for free elections. Or the 1994 Budapest Memorandum when the US, Russia, and the UK gave security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

All Evangelical Focus news and opinion, on your WhatsApp.

These assurances included pledges to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and borders, and to refrain from the use or threat of military force against it. The notoriously volatile and unpredictable American chief executive operates from a might-is-right philosophy, undermining the pillars of justice, reconciliation and dignity on which the post-war international order has been built.

Incredulously, the Washington-Moscow plan embraces Putin’s maximalist demands, even reviving concessions the Kremlin had previously dropped. One can only pray that the real source of the Russian dictator’s control over his American counterpart will soon be brought to light.

That the so-called ‘leader of the Free World’ wants to reward the oppressor and punish the oppressed reveals the morally vacuous climate of this rogue presidency. It sets an unacceptable precedent: that by military aggression, a country might force its adversary to make territorial concessions under threat.

Is it ever legitimate to pressure a country to give up its land for ‘peace’? There can be no true peace without justice.

The 28-point plan is an unjust appeasement. According to media leaks, it includes amnesty for those incriminated in war crimes, chief of whom is Putin himself.

One hopes for a widespread outpouring of moral outrage across America over the next few days in solidarity with Ukraine.

Western and Ukrainian politicians have to speak very diplomatically about this preposterous plan, unable to vent their true feelings. But the knowledge that Russia is in a weak position economically and militarily renders beyond comprehension the American betrayal of western values in proposing major gains to the invader he has been unable to make on the ground.

As with Yalta, we see strong powers dictating terms to a weaker one in a way that might ‘freeze in’ a disadvantageous order for decades.

Spiritual dwarf

The events of this week, including the revelation of deeply-embedded corruption in circles close to President Zelensky, confront both Ukraine and Europe with a severe moral test.

How will Europe respond now? Will European leaders step into the moral gap and stand for values of truth, justice, integrity and restitution?

Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi and other post-war architects envisioned Europe as becoming a community of peoples deeply rooted in values that transcend borders, values worth defending, even sacrificing for. 

Yet Europe has often chosen to be simply a marketplace, a legal arrangement, a club of economic interests.

Schuman said from the start, this project was not just economic and technological. It needed a soul. Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission, repeatedly pleaded with European’s religious leaders to help find a soul for Europe, without which the ‘game would be over within ten years’. Delors warned that Europe was becoming an economic giant, but a spiritual dwarf.

The EU could have strong institutions, markets and treaties, but without shared moral or spiritual narratives it would become nothing more than a trading bloc vulnerable to fragmentation, nationalism and cynicism. 

Delors understood that the European project originally emerged from profound moral convictions —human dignity, solidarity, reconciliation, justice, peace, freedom, democracy— shaped largely by biblical anthropology and the lessons of WWII. Yet by the late 20th century, he believed Europe was drifting from these roots. Europe was losing its ethical compass.

So what did Delors mean by ‘soul’? He answered that question himself, saying: ‘by soul I mean spirituality and meaning’. Economic integration was insufficient.

While markets unified interests, values unified people. Society, a nation, a continent could not flourish on economics alone. 

Moral resources

Delors believed Europe needed moral vision, shared purpose, spiritual depth, a culture of responsibility, relational and community bonds. It needed a deeply-embedded ethos of seeking the common good – locally, nationally, continent-wide and globally. All of which required a sense of transcendence or higher accountability. 

Delors did not mean Europe should become ‘religious’ in a confessional sense. He meant that faith communities carried moral resources —hope, forgiveness, compassion, truth, human dignity, purpose— that could help heal a fragmented Europe and inspire political imagination.

Politicians however are not competent to lead out in ‘soul’ matters. As guardians of these moral resources, leaders of faith communities need to step up to help recover the soul of Europe.

That involves providing moral guidance, nurturing community, promoting peace, supporting justice, and renewing the vision of what Europe is for. 

1. We need to recover Europe’s foundational narrative. The European project emerged from reconciliation between enemies, forgiveness instead of vengeance, the dignity of all humans and all peoples, a vision of peace transcending borders, and a commitment to the common good.

2. We need to promote a moral compass in public life. The lurch towards extreme right has clouded moral choices on issues of migration, economic inequality, human trafficking, environmental responsibility, fair trade, protection of minorities, corruption and good governance.

3. We can deploy our faith communities – the most powerful social networks in Europe – to promote community service, cooperation, the common good, reconciliation across ethic divides, hospitality to migrants, care for the elderly, the lonely and the poor. This combats populism and the rise of ‘us’ and ‘them’ politics. 

Ukraine is the moral test of our time: What are we willing to defend? Are Europe’s values merely rhetorical or genuinely moral? The defence of Ukraine is inseparable from the defence of the European project itself: the rule of law over brute force, truth over disinformation, justice over impunity. 

Rebuilding Ukraine is not charity; it is Europe rediscovering its own identity through service, solidarity, and shared destiny. 

Jeff Fountain, Director of the Schuman Centre for European Studies. This article was first published on the author's blog, Weekly Word.