European leaders are pressing for a coordinated peace plan for Ukraine after a tense week in Washington that left Kyiv and its partners unsettled. The push comes in the wake of an unsuccessful Ukrainian effort to secure U.S. approval to purchase Tomahawk cruise missiles and on the eve of a planned bilateral meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, developments Kyiv and many EU capitals view as potentially destabilizing.

Diplomats in Brussels and several capitals described the atmosphere as urgent. The failure to clinch the Tomahawk purchase has been read in Kyiv as a material weakening of Ukraine’s battlefield options. At the same time, the scheduled Trump–Putin meeting has sharpened European anxieties that substantive decisions could be made in a bilateral setting that sidelines Ukrainian sovereignty and long-standing Western consensus.

The diplomatic unease is unfolding against a backdrop of escalating violence and alarming battlefield reports. Russian missiles pummeled Ukrainian cities in a massive morning assault that struck energy infrastructure, compounding humanitarian stress as winter approaches. Footage reportedly showing North Korean troops directing fire into Sumy Oblast emerged, adding to concerns about the involvement of foreign forces on the ground. Separately, Russian media and channels reported that Russia shot down its own Su-30SM fighter jet during a Ukrainian drone attack on Crimea and Sochi, and local Telegram channels said an electrical substation in Russia’s Ulyanovsk Oblast was in flames following a reported Ukrainian drone strike on Oct. 18.

European leaders argue such a volatile security environment makes unilateral or bilateral deals inappropriate and dangerous. They are urging a multilateral framework anchored in international law that would aim to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity, coordinate military assistance, and set out diplomatic pathways for a durable settlement. Officials emphasize that international guarantees and clear, collective red lines would limit Moscow’s ability to use negotiations as a stalling tactic.

That risk was voiced pointedly in Kyiv: a Ukrainian lawmaker and experts warned, "'Putin got scared' — Trump needs to be wary of Russia's delaying tactic." The warning reflects fear that Moscow could exploit diplomatic openings to fragment Western support and secure concessions without meaningful withdrawal or accountability.

European calls for a plan also carry legal and political dimensions. Leaders are keen to ensure any settlement respects United Nations principles and does not reward annexation or wartime gains. They see a design that combines security assurances, monitoring mechanisms and economic reconstruction as the only path that reconciles immediate ceasefire management with long-term legal and political remedies.

As the transatlantic conversation intensifies, the central tension will be whether Washington, Moscow and Kyiv can be kept inside a broader multilateral architecture or whether bilateral meetings will create space for deals that undermine allied cohesion. For European governments, the refrain is clear: do not give Russia space to reshape the order through ad hoc diplomacy while the guns and the infrastructure continue to blaze.