EU seeks 'united voice' ahead of Ukraine peace talks

Events in Moscow gave the European Political Community (EPC) summit in Dublin a hard edge, shining a sharper spotlight than might have been expected on Micheál Martin's master of ceremonies role.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky, on his third visit to Ireland in 12 months, has been trying to keep a grip on the Trump administration’s latest peace initiative, including two days of talks in Abu Dhabi, at which a European delegation turned up but was then sidelined by Russia.

He also announced that Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system was - once again - mysteriously downgraded, hindering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian ballistic missile and jet-powered drone attacks.

Then, unexpectedly, just before the EPC kicked off, it was announced that President Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner would bounce from Abu Dhabi to the Kremlin and on to Baldonnel Aerodrome in Dublin (surely an itinerary first) to bring news of Vladimir Putin’s views on Europe’s potential involvement in the process.

Having addressed the EPC plenary session at the Convention Centre and attended a Friends of Ukraine meeting on the margins, with UK prime minister Andy Burnham, President Zelensky then high-tailed it to a frigid aerodrome for talks with Mr Kushner and Mr Witkoff.

Following an hour-long meeting, the three emerged to confirm that Europe would be invited to the next talks in Abu Dhabi next week.

"Europe will be [part of] the negotiation team," said Mr Zelensky, "not sideways, not separately. They will have a voice. This is important for us because the war is in Europe".

Mr Kushner added: "We cannot conclude this deal without the Europeans being at the table. We’ve been telling President Putin that we believe that it's very important and that President Zelensky has been a very strong supporter… I think that we're able to achieve that with President Putin and he's willing to give it a try."

However, after his meeting with the envoys, Mr Putin laid the blame for the ongoing war at Europe’s door.

"We would very much like you, distinguished gentlemen, and the American administration as a whole, to work with your European allies so that they finally make up their minds on the question of what they want: peace or war in Ukraine," he said.

Mr Putin also rejected the notion of any European military presence in postwar Ukraine - what he termed "foreign" troops - as unacceptable as it would mean a continuation of the war.

At the same time, Kremlin officials were making it clear that any negotiations would have to include a re-writing of Europe’s settled postwar security arrangements.

"The current system does not work," said Yuri Ushakov, Mr Putin’s foreign policy adviser.

"That’s obvious to everyone. And we hope that European countries will support working on the outlines of a new long-term architecture of non-nuclear security and peace, which we are immediately ready to start on in tandem with the US."

Vladimir Medinsky, Moscow’s lead negotiator, told Russian television that Russia wanted to create "a new comprehensive European security system that will serve as a new Yalta and Potsdam", replacing the postwar order.

'This is a trap'

So, within 24 hours, the EPC was grappling with a number of issues: how to respond to Russia’s apparent change of heart - one which came with strings attached - and how to agree on who should speak for Europe once those talks resumed.

Leaders in Dublin were quick to detect subterfuge in Russia’s offer.

"This is a trap," said Estonia’s prime minister Kristen Michal as he arrived at the convention centre on Thursday. "These are usual, these Russian tactics, that ask for everything that is impossible. [Europe’s security architecture] is for Europe to decide."

Nonetheless, the French president Emmanuel Macron had been working on a set of principles that would underpin any postwar discussions about European security, and at the summit on Thursday secured the signatures of 41 European leaders, including the Taoiseach.

The principles included commitments to international law "in the face of the unprovoked full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine and growing threats to Europe stability".

European countries would "consider" strengthening their security and defending their interests "as their common objective" with their firm support for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

"The signatory states recall that the path to peace in Ukraine should be decided with Ukraine and that any matter affecting European security should be decided with the Europeans," the statement said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was equally dismissive of Russia’s efforts to apparently move the goalposts by insisting on re-litigating the end of the Cold War as part of any ceasefire discussions.

"There will be no discussions about Ukraine without Ukraine, and no discussions about Europe without Europe," Mr Merz told reporters on Friday. "Furthermore, there is no need to talk about [a] European security architecture. We have that already."

Likewise, joining the Taoiseach for the news conference to draw the EPC to a close, the European Council President Antonio Costa said: "Ukraine is a sovereign nation, like any other nation in Europe. It must remain free to choose its alliances and its partnerships. Europe has consigned empires and zones of influence to the dustbin of history, and we will never allow them to come to life again."

Arriving the next morning, however, the Taoiseach was more circumspect when asked about the Yalta and Potsdam parallels.

"Many around the [EPC] table feel there was a security architecture - there is a security architecture - but Russia violated that by invading Ukraine."

However, history showed that bringing a war to an end required processes to be developed.

"You have to get people to the table. You've got to get people to get off their war footing. That is why the European perspective is important in terms of what peace looks like. What does a new, post-war Ukraine look like in the context of the European Union, in the context of NATO and other organisations?

"That's why it's very important that that conversation happens around the European table. And people are very clear: fundamentals aren't going to change in terms of the NATO architecture, and people were very clear about that at yesterday's meeting."

Concerns over a 'second Anchorage moment'

Nonetheless, if Russia is to end its war against Ukraine, it will likely want something to show for it (this week figures leaked from Russia’s statistics agency showed that at least 450,000 Russian troops had been killed to date in the war).

At a minimum, that could be Russia securing control of all of the Donbas and two other regions which it only partially holds; and some kind of re-ordering of the eastern European security system.

This is nothing new. Two months before its fullscale invasion of Ukraine, Russia issued an ultimatum, by way of two draft treaties, to the United States and NATO, which included ban on Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries ever joining NATO, and the withdrawal of NATO troops and weapons from central and eastern Europe.

NATO and the Biden Administration rejected the draft treaties, calling on Russia to cease its build-up on Ukraine’s borders but offering to improve transparency and to negotiate limits on missiles and military exercises.

The difference today is that the Trump administration is much more acquiescent to Russia’s demands, with President Trump putting more pressure on Volodymyr Zelensky than on Vladimir Putin to do a deal.

Next week, President Trump will join Mr Putin and China’s Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in China, with Europeans nervous that Mr Trump will be tempted into a Yalta-style carve up of eastern Europe.

"Some here in Dublin fear this could turn into a 'second Anchorage moment'," said Chancellor Merz, referring to Mr Trump’s meeting with Mr Putin in Alaska last summer, when the US side appeared to concede to a wishlist of Russian demands.

"I therefore want to state our message to the United States very clearly: please, no surprises. Continue to play as part of 'Team Europe' and 'Team Ukraine'."

A bruised Donald Trump, who maintains his antipathy towards President Zelensky, may be in no mood to listen to Chancellor Merz’s entreaties.

This leaves the question as to who will represent Europe in the negotiations, a vexed question given the multi-layered support Ukraine has received, and the diverse interests at stake, both EU and non-EU.

This has been a thorny issue for Europe, especially since the return of Donald Trump and the multiple meetings his envoys have held with Vladimir Putin (as well as that Anchorage summit).

A low-level debate on whether Europeans should be making their own overtures to the Kremlin has simmered since last December, with the issue coming to a head after Jonas Gahr Stører, the Norwegian prime minister, and Finnish president Alexander Stubb held a joint 90-minute phone call with Mr Putin two weeks ago.

They had cleared the call with President Zelensky, but not EU leaders, prompting sharp criticism by Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen and an angry letter from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, complaining that the EU was "all over the place" on who talks to Russia.

A number of leaders came out in favour of Antonio Costa, the European Council president, who represents 27 EU leaders, while others have suggested that Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, should also have a role (she said she was prepared to take on the task, pending a leader-driven mandate).

NATO is the pre-eminent security actor while the European Commission manages sanctions against Russia.

Mr Martin said a European presence in the negotiations should not be restricted to the European Union.

"I don't think it can just be a European Union dimension because the Coalition of the Willing [a 36-country potential peace-enforcing alliance led by the UK, France and Germany] has been involved far more than the European Union. The United Kingdom has had a significant role. Norway has had a very significant role," he said.

"That all has to be taken into consideration because it's a European continent-wide issue."

Friedrich Merz said: "There are established institutional forms of [EU] representation - Kaja Kallas, for instance, is part of this - but the E3 format has also proven very effective," he said, in reference to an informal security grouping of France, Germany and the UK.

"Moreover, we always include Italy and Poland," he said.

Mr Merz was correct.

Following the summit, President Costa said leaders had agreed on a "European team" including the EU’s institutions, ie, the European Council, the European Commission, and the so-called E5 format - the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland, key members of the so-called Coalition of the Willing which will potentially provide a peacekeeping or peace-enforcement capability as part of future security guarantees.

That appears to sideline Kaja Kallas.

"Europe must speak with one clear and united voice in all discussions that shape the future of Ukraine and the security of our continent," Mr Costa told reporters. "And this is ultimately a team effort. Only Ukraine has the legitimacy to decide on matters concerning its territory and sovereignty."

The negotiating team will likely remain at the level of national security advisers for now, with more senior figures entering the fray if the talks gain traction.

The Taoiseach said the Irish Government had always been open to a ceasefire monitoring or peacekeeping dimension to any postwar security guarantee for Ukraine and "not the enforcement side of it, or not a deterrent force".

He said: "Say you had a ceasefire along the lines of where the current conflict is, Ireland as peacekeepers would be willing to play our role in monitoring that peace and particularly a ceasefire line, or indeed in terms of any other civilian dimension to conflict resolution or to working on peace initiatives."

All that remains in the far distance. There is no guarantee that the Kremlin will accept the European negotiating format, or the mandate that it forges.

In that scenario, President Putin could complain to Donald Trump that the Europeans are not interested in peace; how he responds, post the midterm elections, will be closely watched in Brussels and other European capitals.