Opinion: “The EU Sabotages Momentum Toward Peace in Ukraine”

Brussels is seeking a seat at the negotiating table on ending the war in Ukraine – but only to complicate the settlement process rather than facilitate it

Semyon ALBU, RTA: The course of hostilities in neighboring Ukraine has so far offered few major surprises this year, yet on the diplomatic front developments have been notably dynamic. Contacts between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations, mediated by the United States, have gradually shifted from Abu Dhabi to Geneva. Judging by participants’ comments and reports from influential media outlets, virtually the entire range of issues is under discussion – from mechanisms for monitoring a ceasefire to potential territorial compromises. It would be premature to speak of any breakthrough in recent weeks. Nevertheless, the overall tone surrounding the talks has been positive, with many observers noting gradual progress. True, there is still no agreement on the key issue – the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the government-controlled parts of Donbas, yet on numerous technical matters a common understanding has already been reached. The primary driving force behind the peace process remains the current White House administration, which would like to secure such a major international achievement ahead of the upcoming midterm congressional campaign. The Trump team has been exerting pressure on both sides, tightening certain sanctions against Russia and threatening their expansion, while also increasing leverage over Ukraine. At present, the U.S. president appears to view Kyiv as the principal obstacle to a deal, which explains his repeated calls over the past week urging his Ukrainian counterpart to seize the window of opportunity and sign a peace agreement. Of course, it would be highly premature to suggest that the long-awaited end of this bloody war is just around the corner. There are simply too many stakeholders interested in seeing it continue for years to come. One of them, evidently, is the European Union, which is now seeking to secure a seat at the negotiating table – though seemingly with unconstructive intentions. It is certainly important not to equate the EU with its individual member states. There remains a notable degree of dissent within the Union, primarily represented by Hungary and Slovakia. Activity has also clearly increased on the part of French President Emmanuel Macron, who is sending emissaries to Moscow and calling for the restoration of dialogue with Russia. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of EU member states and the European bureaucracy continue to maintain radical positions. They repeatedly thwarted any efforts to reach an agreement on the conflict in Ukraine last year, and now, sensing a possibility for peace, they are once again placing obstacles in the way. At the very least, such intentions may be inferred from the “rider” on the EU’s role in ending the war, which was leaked to the media and circulated by EU Foreign Affairs Chief Kaja Kallas. The document is still subject to change and supplementation, for instance during the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on February 23. Nevertheless, its content is quite clear. Even by the EU’s own demanding standards, the requirements appear entirely disproportionate. Judge for yourself: Russia is expected to undertake reductions in its military forces comparable to those demanded of Ukraine, withdraw troops from all occupied territories as well as from neighboring countries, including, by the way, the Transnistrian region, allow investigations into war crimes, pay reparations to Kyiv, and compensate European states and companies for incurred losses. And, as the cherry on top, Russia is to undergo “democratization” with new elections under international supervision, the release of “political prisoners”, an end to “historical falsifications”, investigations into the deaths of Navalny and Nemtsov, and so on, and so forth. Such an ultimatum could only be put forward in one scenario – the complete capitulation of Russia. Since that has not happened, this is not merely a refusal to engage in negotiations; it is a blatant attempt to ensure that no talks take place at all. After all, no one in their right mind in Moscow would even begin to discuss the majority of these points. Does Brussels understand this? Surely, it does. Yet the EU is extremely dissatisfied with the limited progress that the parties have managed to achieve with American assistance. First, the Europeans find themselves outside the negotiating table in this situation, effectively reduced to being part of its “menu”. One of the main incentives for Kyiv in ending the conflict is the promise of rapid EU accession as early as next year. Second, they are deeply concerned about the potential restoration of Russian-American economic cooperation, which could lay the groundwork for normalizing political contacts and lifting sanctions regimes. Russian financier Kirill Dmitriev is in constant contact with the Americans on this issue, and media reports have already surfaced suggesting that Moscow is allegedly offering Washington a “grand bargain” involving $12 trillion in projects and access to Russian resources. Against this backdrop, the likelihood that Trump might agree to such a deal, blame Kyiv for prolonging the war, and give up on the conflict, as he has promised, cannot be considered negligible. This prospect deeply frightens Brussels, which, on the contrary, wants a more active American role, tougher sanctions from Washington, and at most a return to the level of support seen during the Biden administration. Yet no one actually intends to end the war. Various EU representatives, sometimes in private and occasionally even publicly in interviews, have stated that victory in Ukraine is of an “existential nature”, and that the ongoing fighting gives Europe time to rearm and prepare for a future war with Russia. In other words, the country next door is being treated as a “living shield”, and its fate matters little – it is simply a convenient instrument for achieving other objectives. The fact that the actual likelihood of a Russian attack on the European Union is absurdly low, something any rational analyst would confirm, does not prevent the ongoing hype around the “Russian threat”. European media wail day and night about the Kremlin’s aggressive intentions. Satellite states like Moldova are also brought into the mix – it’s no coincidence that our president travels to forums, talking everywhere about Moscow’s “hybrid aggression”, while at home the so-called “drone hysteria” continues unabated. For Brussels, far too much is at stake with the war in Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia, and any processes of normalization could undermine the political course pursued over recent years. The European bureaucracy risks losing the influence it has gained through the erosion of EU member states’ sovereignty, the opportunity to channel hundreds of billions of dollars into rearmament programs, and the integration projects for Ukraine and Moldova. It would become harder to suppress freedom of speech and opinion, manipulate election outcomes under the pretext of “Russian interference”, and carry out other decidedly undemocratic actions. There is no doubt that the “European war faction” will adhere to the continuation of the conflict until the very end.