There is movement in the corridors of Brussels to resume direct diplomatic negotiations with Russia, with news that the choice of a “special envoy” to speak to the Kremlin on behalf of Ukraine and the EU is close. But the fact is that “there are many more questions than answers” and there is a lack of “a clear strategy for this contact”
Ten days passed between the president of the European Council saying that there is a relationship between the European Union (EU) and Russia with the aim of putting an end to the war in Ukraine and Angela Merkel criticizing the bloc for not maintaining an open communication channel with Moscow.
“The EU is not making sufficient use of its diplomatic potential”, this week, at a conference organized by public broadcaster WDR in Berlin. “Diplomacy has always been the other side of the coin, even during the Cold War – military deterrence combined with diplomatic activity, that’s what I think is important.”
The statements were received within Europe with a mix of criticism and doubts. “Frankly, I don’t see exactly what the objective is, and Merkel’s statements are particularly regrettable”, says Francisco Pereira Coutinho to CNN Portugal. “We are talking about someone who had a very appeasing policy towards the Kremlin, an energy policy that was absolutely disastrous for Europe, which left Germany in a very fragile position at the beginning of the conflict, and who did not anticipate what Vladimir Putin truly wanted – in addition to the fact that Putin himself thinks he was deceived by Merkel in 2014 and 2015, with the Minsk agreements, he thinks they were made so that the Ukrainians could rearm, and who, in 2022, this allowed them to respond to Russia’s aggression”, considers the specialist in International Law.
More than four years after the full-scale Russian invasion, and with the war still with no end in sight, the EU is increasingly admitting the possibility of speaking directly to Moscow. There is an ongoing internal soul-searching that has intensified in the corridors of Brussels over the last month – and last Sunday, it was the president of Ukraine himself who publicly called on Europeans to appoint a special envoy for peace negotiations.
“It is important that [a UE] have a strong voice and presence in this process, and it is worth defining who will specifically represent Europe”, said Volodymyr Zelensky after speaking with the president of the European Council, António Costa. A day later, Merkel defended the resumption of EU-Kremlin diplomacy on the grounds that it is “insufficient” for the negotiations to be left exclusively in the hands of the USA, especially because it is not known what level of concessions Donald Trump can make to Vladimir Putin. “We are also someone, as Europeans. Underestimating Putin would be a mistake, even now. And not having confidence in ourselves would be an equally big mistake.”
For experts interviewed by CNN Portugal, the issue has nothing to do with self-confidence, but rather with the fact that, at least at the moment, there is a very low chance of direct conversations leading to any type of success. “It is always good to have conversations, dialogues, contacts, to understand the positioning and red lines, understand the other side, what is the possible negotiating margin and what the opponent’s objectives are”, concedes Marta Mucznik, from the International Crisis Group. “But the big question that must be asked is: is Russia ready to negotiate on terms more compatible with Europeans? The fact is that there is no indication that Russia is ready to deviate from its maximalist position.”
“There is nothing wrong with having these types of initiatives, [mas] I think they are quite useless”, adds Pereira Coutinho. “We cannot be against opening diplomatic channels but, frankly, I don’t see what kind of progress can be achieved at this moment.” Furthermore, the only opening that Vladimir Putin gave for negotiations with Europe invoked the name of Gerhard Schröder, former Chancellor of Germany who has a position too close to the Kremlin for him to be considered as a viable option in Brussels.
“It makes perfect sense for the EU to be part of a conversation, but this has nothing to do with replacing the US, Zelensky himself has already said, and also Costa – that any contact there is will not interfere in the channel between the US and Russia”, says Marta Mucznik, from the International Crisis Group (EPA)
The best moment?
It will not be a coincidence that these moves to revive diplomatic efforts are occurring at a time of great Ukrainian achievements on the battlefield. Last weekend, long-range drones arrived in the Russian capital region and achieved the goal in more than a year, reinforcing the idea that Kiev is managing to turn the game around, something that is also confirmed by the .
“Right now, apparently, Ukraine is in a surprisingly very favorable position and, in theory, yes, this is a better time to negotiate – it is better to negotiate in a more favorable position than in a very unfavorable position like last year”, points out Pereira Coutinho. “But the issue always has to do with the other side, with the Kremlin, with Putin, who recently said that this should come to an end but, in the meantime, does not show any signs that he is open to any type of negotiations.”
Earlier this month, Russian affairs expert Oleg Ignatov said that “Russian leaders underestimated how quickly Ukraine, with European help, was able to increase production of long-range drones,” noting that, “although Russia’s long-range capabilities still surpass Ukraine’s, the fact is that Russia has begun to feel the consequences of the war more acutely.”
The latest Ukrainian attacks have reinforced this idea, demonstrating new trends on the battlefield, joined by a revealing statement from the US administration this week, just as Donald Trump returned from his official visit to China. According to the US president, during his trip, Chinese leader Xi Jinping said that Putin will “regret having invaded Ukraine” – information that Beijing immediately denied, on the eve of Vladimir Putin also traveling to Beijing.
“This probably happened, it is very likely, and this is Trump being Trump, we have private conversations that normally would not be released to the press but that he decides to disclose”, says Francisco Pereira Coutinho. “I believe Xi said that, it is even strange that only now, four years later, the Chinese think that this was not a good idea – I think everyone already knows that.”
For analysts, this opens a new diplomatic front that the US can and should take advantage of after a series of failed attempts to resolve the war in Ukraine. And for several European leaders and former leaders, such as Costa and Merkel, we are facing a golden opportunity for the EU to take the reins of the negotiations, even if not replacing the North Americans.
“I think there is a certain confusion in the debate, because the EU would never play a role of facilitator and mediator, because in essence it is a party involved in the conflict”, says Marta Mucznik. “It is important that it is represented at the negotiating table when they happen, because a large part of the leverage belongs to the EU, when it comes to sanctions relief, frozen Russian assets, it makes perfect sense for the EU to be part of a conversation, but this has nothing to do with replacing the US”, says the Crisis Group expert. “Zelensky himself has already said this, and also Costa – that any contact there is will not interfere in the channel between the US and Russia.”
Some of the names mentioned by the media for the role of EU special envoy for negotiations with Russia are Mário Draghi, former Italian prime minister, and Angela Merkel, former German chancellor. photo Andrew Medichini/AP
The problem is that, more than ever, the war in Ukraine seems to have definitively left the US administration’s list of priorities, especially because the United States has become involved in another war from which it is having difficulty exiting. After the efforts launched by Washington in 2025, highlights Pereira Coutinho, “this year the US and Donald Trump are interested in another type of conflict, first in Venezuela, now in Iran, and therefore Trump was completely distracted from the Ukrainian issue, also because he realized that he had no capabilities – no more ability to put pressure on Ukraine than what he had done, nor any type of ability to put pressure on Russia”.
“Without much hope”
For now it seems unlikely that the US will resume efforts to mediate a solution for Ukraine and that is also why, believes Francisco Pereira Coutinho, we are seeing “this rhetoric”. “The United States was playing that role, it gave up. In 2025, it looked like there might be a solution to the conflict and now the idea is that maybe we should maintain that process, but with very low expectations.”
The fact is that Europeans are not the appropriate party to conduct a negotiation process, says the expert. “The US can be a mediator, even if not a very good one, but we certainly aren’t, because we are on one side, on the side of Ukraine, and what are we basically mediating? Or are we going to negotiate on Ukraine’s behalf? Only if Ukraine mandates us to do so.”
This is where the ongoing discussion about who could be the EU’s “special envoy” for diplomatic contacts with the Kremlin comes in, something that has even happened on the part of some Member States, such as when France sent Emmanuel Bonne, Macron’s advisor, to meet with one of Putin’s main advisors, Yuri Ushakov, – the first direct contact between Paris and Moscow since 2019.
“These contacts exist and nothing prevents the EU from having direct contact with the Kremlin, just as it also has contacts with the Iranians and the Chinese – but perhaps it would be more sensible to start at a lower level, not at the level of Costa or another leader appointed special envoy”, argues Marta Mucznik. One of the hypotheses is Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland who also says that “it is time to start talking to Putin”. Other names under analysis, such as , are the Italian technocrat Mario Draghi and Merkel herself, who played this role at the same conference at the beginning of the week.
At a conference on Monday, Merkel – pictured here with Putin in 2007 – criticized the EU for not talking directly to the Kremlin, but rejected the possibility of mediating negotiations with the Russians on behalf of the Europeans and Ukrainians. photo Getty Images
For the Crisis Group analyst, the EU is focused on the wrong decision. “The discussion now is whether there should be a special envoy for contacts with Russia with a view to a peace process, but perhaps before that it would be better to have contact more at the level of chiefs of staff, to, let’s say, break down stones and maintain open dialogue channels.”
“More important than having a special envoy,” argues Mucznik, “is defining what message we want to convey – and, at this moment, there is no consensus or clarity about the message or the basis of the conversation, there are many more questions than answers, and that is the big issue, there is no clear strategy for this contact.”
And what could the message be? Francisco Pereira Coutinho points to the model of the Minsk Agreements, negotiated by Merkel and François Hollande after the Russian annexation of Crimea, to halt the advance of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. “It is true that, in 2014 and 2015, it was the French president and the German chancellor who went to negotiate with Russia and the Minsk agreements were reached. And now it would have to be a solution of this type and it would have to be leaders like Merkel and Macron speaking directly on behalf of the whole of Europe, in conjunction with Ukraine – but for that to happen it would be necessary for the Russians to give the signal that we can have reasonable demands.”
This is also why Pereira Coutinho is not risking success predictions for now. “I think all of these are ideas that we can launch, but they don’t bring much hope, given all the doubts we debate. How do we accomplish this? Who will represent us? There are in fact several dimensions that are difficult to uncover.”
