“The Shell Bay Format,” Trump’s latest proposal regarding Ukraine, has alarmed European capitals. The American president’s plan has a major problem.
“The Shell Bay Format” is an unexpected concept in history. This phrase, which takes its name from a 60-hectare luxury golf course and residential complex owned by Steve Witkoff, appeared Thursday as the name for the next stage of the Trump administration’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine, according to a CNN analysis.
Jared Kushner – a colleague of Witkoff in the peace mission and also a real estate magnate – used this term on Thursday, in a solemn post on the X platform, suggesting the need for a broad peace agreement in Europe. “For more than 30 years, Europe and Russia have struggled to establish a sustainable security framework,” he wrote.
Trump endorsed this idea on Thursday, after a meeting at the White House with Moscow’s envoy, Kiril Dmitriev. “I can’t reveal what we discussed. But I can tell you this: it will be an important agreement. It will focus on more than Ukraine; I might even say it could involve all of Europe,” he said.
Three European officials contacted by CNN on Friday morning admitted that they did not know what Kushner or Trump were referring to. Ukrainian President Zelenski also stated on Friday that he has few details about this proposal and warned that things will not be simple in peace talks.
In his post, Kushner highlighted five main objectives:
- ongoing consultations on security matters;
- reliable communication channels for crisis situations;
- greater military transparency;
- reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks;
- a durable framework for Europe’s long-term security and stability.
It was mentioned that NATO would play a key role, although the objectives presented might suggest a more limited role for the alliance in which the United States is the irreplaceable founding member.
This ambitious and confusing string of ideas from Kushner omitted to mention the invasion of two of Russia’s neighbors, as well as the two wars in Chechnya that took place in the same post-Soviet period. Moreover, the text seemed to suggest that any eventual agreement would complement NATO without undermining the rationale for the Alliance’s existence, CNN notes.
What Trump’s new agenda aims for
High-ranking officials from NATO and European institutions gathered in Brussels over the past 72 hours to discuss economic and security matters in the context of the situation in Ukraine and the Russia-Ukraine negotiations – mediated by the US – scheduled for next week in Abu Dhabi.
On this occasion, the US will try to relaunch discussions on resolving the conflict.
Moscow appointed Vladimir Medinski to lead the Russian delegation. Being a diplomat passionate about lectures on historical topics, his appointment led many to conclude that Russia wants to turn back time to May 2025, when the last talks of this kind took place.
In reality, months of negotiations held in Miami, Abu Dhabi, Alaska, Istanbul, and Geneva have shown one thing: Moscow wants its war objectives to be fulfilled before ending the war.
However, the “Shell Bay format” appears at a time when Trump, weakened after the midterm elections, will soon face bigger obstacles in his domestic agenda; therefore, he might try to consolidate his legacy in foreign policy, a field where he is less constrained.
Iran seems a less likely option for a defiant action, given that Trump and many high-ranking Republicans attribute this week’s electoral defeat to the war. Under these circumstances, a peace formula in Ukraine might represent a more tempting alternative; perhaps Trump sees, through his constant closeness and sympathy for Vladimir Putin, a way to truly reshape the world, enrich a small group of Americans, and free the US from the burden of supporting a cumbersome European security system.
The sudden return of Ukraine to Trump’s agenda has caused agitation in European capitals.
“We will inevitably witness Trump focusing on Ukraine now that the midterm elections have spoken,” a European official told CNN.
He noted that no agreement can simply be imposed on Ukraine or Europe without their consent, even if Trump tries to enforce it.
Major risk of Trump’s formula
There are risks Europe and Ukraine could face in the last 18 effective months of Trump’s term, notes the mentioned analysis:
- The upcoming winter for Ukraine – a country that in Kyiv is already facing disruptions in water supply, mobile phone services, and electricity – could be marked by new, unexplained limitations on technical assistance and intelligence from the US, as observed in previous months.
- Europe could also face an escalation of sabotage acts and “gray zone” provocations from Moscow.
The risk is not that NATO member states (other than the US) and Ukraine might suddenly give in or accept limitations on their defense capabilities. Considering the lessons of history, 18 months is indeed a short period – by Russian diplomatic calendars – to conclude any kind of agreement.
What this possible rapprochement period between the US and Russia could dangerously bring is something else: Putin might interpret the US refusal to support Europe or Ukraine as a new reason to escalate the conflict and relentlessly pursue achieving on the front the outcome he desires in this war – an outcome that neither five years of invasion nor two years of Trump’s term have brought him.
Kushner and Trump’s talks about a potential agreement might prove to be hollow. However, they create a brief window of increased opportunity for an increasingly tense Kremlin. And this could tempt Russia’s leadership to take even more reckless risks, the analysis concludes.
T.D.