© Allexxandar/depositphotos.com Certain nations favor conversing with the Kremlin, while others object.
The concept of renewing connections with the Kremlin to facilitate peace negotiations aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine has created discord among European Union nations: certain entities are advocating for a special emissary, whereas others maintain that Russia must initially provide concessions, reports Euronews.
Is it appropriate for the European Union to contact Vladimir Putin? The response varies based on the individual queried.
The proposition to re-engage the Kremlin in discussions as a component of endeavors to cease hostilities in Ukraine has considerably divided the 27 EU member states: some endorse it, some are resolutely opposed, and the majority remain uncommitted, endeavoring to discern the prevailing sentiment.
Although the topic itself is not novel, it garnered fresh impetus following explicit endorsements from both French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Maloni to reinstate interactions last month.
The aforementioned leaders, who have previously disagreed with each other on multiple occasions, concurred that as Ukraine’s primary benefactor, the European Union ought to possess a continuous presence at the discussion forum to influence the continent’s future security structure, independent of the White House, which currently functions as the principal intermediary in dealings with the Kremlin.
The security assurances that European and American entities are formulating for the period following the war, encompassing legally binding commitments to aid Kyiv in the event of a renewed assault, amplify the persuasiveness of arguments supporting the resumption of dialogue.
“I believe it is opportune for Europe to engage with Russia as well,” George Maloney conveyed to journalists a few days following attendance at a Coalition of the Willing assembly in Paris. “Should Europe opt to enter this phase of negotiations by communicating with solely one faction, I am concerned that its constructive contribution will ultimately be restricted.”
Since that juncture, the discourse pertaining to potential EU interaction with the Kremlin has only amplified. There are growing appeals for a designated emissary to embody all member states and avert a scenario where “an excessive number of voices speak concurrently,” as articulated by Maloney.
Austria, the Czech Republic, and Luxembourg have already communicated their endorsement for such a notion.
“When European security is under deliberation, Europe is not present,” asserted Austrian Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger. “Europe is at its most potent when it articulates a unified perspective. We necessitate a singular European strategy, as opposed to 27 distinct national paths.”
However, unanimity is not present on this issue.
Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, and Cyprus have conveyed staunch opposition, citing Vladimir Putin’s maximalist stipulations and the sustained Russian bombardment of Ukrainian energy framework and civilian localities during a duration of debilitating frost as validation that Moscow lacks readiness for any compromises.
“Presently, we do not perceive the exigency to inaugurate supplementary channels of communication,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated last month.
“Moscow must manifest a willingness to cease hostilities. Should it not do so, the cost Russia incurs for this conflict, inclusive of the economic ramifications, will escalate incrementally,” he appended.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson conceded that Europe would “eventually” reinstate diplomatic avenues, but underscored that such a determination should be predicated upon Russia’s genuine disposition for a “substantial procedure” aimed at concluding the war.
“The manner in which this conflict concludes will reveal considerable insights into the prospects for any enduring rapport,” he remarked in an interview with the Swedish publication Expressen.
“We are unable to speak on behalf of others. Naturally, there may exist nations amenable to resuming commerce or alternative connections with Russia, but our fundamental stance is skepticism pending evidence to the contrary. And this, in my estimation, is entirely logical.”
The pronounced discrepancies have not eluded observation in Brussels. EU entities are diligently monitoring the influx of public pronouncements and are exercising prudence so as not to assume a position prior to nations attempting to identify a consensus.
Further ambiguity is engendered by the absence of a homogenous vision among proponents of contact reinstatement regarding the desired composition of this “return to dialogue.”
In the preceding week, Emmanuel Macron dispatched his principal diplomatic advisor, Emmanuel Bonn, to Moscow. The excursion, which was undertaken surreptitiously and documented in the French press retroactively, was intended to lay the foundation for a telephonic conversation between Macron and Putin, whose most recent discourse occurred in July 2025.
This endeavor proved unsuccessful. Reports indicate Bonn returned devoid of outcomes, and the Russian Foreign Ministry characterized the expedition as “a manifestation of futile diplomacy.”
Macron subsequently stipulated that the reinstatement of dialogue should transpire without “an inordinate quantity of mediators” and “with a defined mandate.”
“I intend to address this matter with European associates and cultivate a meticulously structured European methodology,” Macron articulated in an interview with various European publications. “Irrespective of our predilections concerning Russia, it will remain a fixture in the future.”
While France envisions the resumption of dialogue as direct interactions between heads of state, alternative member states espouse a divergent perspective.
According to Latvian Prime Minister Evika Silini, the EU special envoy should partake in US-facilitated tripartite deliberations encompassing Russia and Ukraine, rather than engaging in a distinct dialogue with Moscow. In this scenario, economic penalties should persist.
“We should be present at the negotiating table, given that the Ukrainians themselves have already initiated negotiations. Therefore, why should European entities refrain from participation?” Silinya remarked in a statement to Euronews.
Concurrently, EU High Representative Kaia Kallas advocated for initially delineating the political goals that any emissary or telephonic contact should realize prior to undertaking subsequent measures. She additionally scrutinized the suitability of extant initiatives in light of Russia’s propensity to demand the “absolute maximum.”
“The pertinent query currently is not the identity of the facilitator, but rather the modalities and objectives we aspire to attain,” Kaia Kallas articulated. “Should the Russians perceive that they secure their optimum objectives from the Americans, what incentive would they possess to converse with the Europeans?”
Informally, EU officials and diplomats acknowledge the gravity of the discourse, yet caution that it persists at an abstract plane, lacking a defined structure or orientation. The profound fissures among the capitals are notably complicating internal deliberations.
Currently, there is no indication as to when this sensitive matter might be introduced for comprehensive deliberation by all 27 leaders. The forthcoming formal EU summit is slated for March 19.
Meanwhile, discreetly, prospective candidates for the role of special emissary are being cautiously mentioned: these incorporate Finnish President Alexander Stubb and former European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager.
Another Nordic figure emerging in the discussions is Sauli Niinisto, the past president of Finland and author of an EU report pertaining to civil and military preparedness. Niinisto is conversant in Russian and convened with Putin on several instances during his presidency.
For select politicians, the reinstatement of interactions appears inevitable. Visual depictions of the tripartite dialogues involving the US, Ukraine, and Russia in Abu Dhabi, absent the participation of European representatives, solely accentuated the magnitude of the stakes. The €90 billion loan sanctioned by EU leaders to sustain Kyiv and correlated with the issuance of communal debt is additionally perceived as a rationale supporting more assertive diplomacy.
Others advocate for circumspection, apprehensive that precipitate rapprochement could transpire without Ukraine’s cognizance and dismantle the unified European front cultivated over the preceding four years, which Hungary and Slovakia have recurrently undermined through escalating contacts with Moscow.
“We lend our support to any diplomatic initiatives geared towards securing an equitable and enduring peace in Ukraine, predicated on international regulations and the UN Charter,” the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared.
“From the EU’s vantage point, political discourse with Russia ought to be conducted contingent upon a cohesive stance of the European Union, concurred upon by all 27 member states.”