Why Europe failed to find a superhero to take on Putin

LONDON — Some European leaders wanted a superhero negotiator to take on Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, secure a fair peace deal for Ukraine, and safeguard the continent’s own security, as ceasefire talks gather pace. 

They were never going to find one. 

That had already become the view of diplomats and officials close to the discussions, granted anonymity to comment on the sensitive Ukraine peace process that’s dividing opinion in European capitals, even before the EU decided on Friday that it would have to be a team effort. 

The push to identify one representative to speak for Europe was understandable. The appeal of having a single, respected leader taking the reins is largely based on a desire to project European strength and unity — as well as an interest in making negotiations with Russia, the U.S. and Ukraine efficient and effective. 

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself said this week he wanted Europe to identify within days who will take its place in the talks, and suggested he’d prefer it was one person (he even indicated that he had a preference, though would not reveal a name).He didn’t get his way. Instead, leaders at a summit in Dublin on Friday, decided that the “E5” made up four big EU countries ― Germany, France, Poland and Italy ― and the U.K., plus officials from the European Commission and Council, would take the work forward as a team.

The search for a top representative to fill Europe’s seat at the negotiating table at the next round of peace talks had become a political obsession in Brussels that missed at least two big points. 

The first is that the leadership level is not currently where the negotiations are at. Talks this week in Abu Dhabi were technical discussions between senior officials. The big political players like Putin and Zelenskyy were not there, never mind Trump. Russia sent a Kremlin aide to lead its team and Ukraine tasked its intelligence chief with making its case. 

If these officials make progress toward a deal, leaders will no doubt want to get involved. Ultimately, it will be leaders who sign any peace agreements that follow — and there’s no limit on the number of EU presidents or prime ministers who could join such a meeting as signatories or guarantors of the final deal. 

The next thing that needs to happen, according to both Ukraine and the U.S. envoys mediating the talks, is for Europe to join the discussion with Russia — at this technical level. 

The second point some member states and Brussels insiders were missing is structural: There are just too many European stakeholders with equally important but very distinct interests and remits, making consolidation of all the different strands under one person impossible. 

The Commission can’t negotiate Europe’s future security architecture — that’s for NATO members and national capitals to decide. But equally NATO, Paris and Berlin cannot negotiate EU sanctions or Ukraine’s accession to the bloc — these are in the Commission’s remit. 

And the idea that the “E3” — Europe’s big economic and military beasts of Germany, France and the U.K. — would let either the Commission, the European Council or NATO do it all on their behalf is not realistic. 

As one EU diplomat put it: “The reason why Europe hasn’t found one person who can represent the whole of Europe is that Europe is not a superstate.” 

In the context of the Ukraine talks, European interests encompass many EU member states but also countries like the U.K., and Norway, as well as Turkey and Moldova, the diplomat said. “Who can promise troops on the ground on behalf of the rest of Europe? Who can offer billions in financing? It’s difficult.” 

The conclusion some officials involved in the Abu Dhabi process reached was that Europe would have to be represented by a team, much as it has been already, albeit at one step removed from the main negotiating room so far. Different members of that team will own different issues. 

Then there’s the question of content: What will be discussed and what will Team Europe’s collective position be? 

“What we actually say is more important than the exact configuration of the people in the room,” Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on his way into Friday’s meeting of EU leaders.

The reason why American and Ukrainian officials want Europe’s participation is because they believe beginning a discussion about reshaping the continent’s security structures could unlock a more cooperative approach from Russia. 

Russia’s top negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said Europe’s security framework was the main topic discussed in Abu Dhabi this week: “The conflict in Ukraine showed that the entire security system operating after Yalta and Potsdam is working poorly, and an abscess broke through in Ukraine,” he said. 

Ukraine’s team noted that the hardline Russian approach softened a little when Moscow’s representatives saw the chance to talk about their wider demands on European security.

But Europe itself wasn’t part of that conversation.

The first thing to resolve will be on the sequencing of the negotiations — most significantly, when should Europeans allow themselves to discuss Russia’s demand to overhaul regional security? This is a critical and potentially existential question for European countries. And it is already a subject on which top EU officials are weighing their positions with care. 

Those close to the talks believe a clever way can be found to offer Russia a conversation about regional security as part of careful sequencing of the negotiations, without binding the issue completely into the final peace agreement for Ukraine. 

But different EU spokespeople are saying different things on this sequencing point, in what is either a clever strategy, or a sign of continuing disarray.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top centrally contracted diplomat, said there must be no discussion of wider European security architecture — such as NATO configurations, troop deployments and working forums for consultations with Russia — until after the peace deal is finalized. 

But in Abu Dhabi, EU officials signaled their readiness to allow parallel tracks in the talks,  so Ukraine’s peace settlement and Europe’s future security structures could be discussed at the same time. 

Officials in national capitals also agree that the “sequencing” of the negotiations on this point is key. Behind the scenes different countries and factions have different views on what the right strategy should be, just as they struggle with the question of whether it’s right to engage directly with Putin at all. 

And of course the question of Europe’s role may yet be moot. The U.S. envoys said on Thursday night that Putin had consented to letting Europe join the talks, but the Kremlin called this into question on Friday. 

After the negotiations in Abu Dhabi concluded this week, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior envoy, acknowledged the twin problems he faces. “If Europe could identify one person to speak on their behalf, that would be a bigger achievement than getting the Russians to include them in the negotiation,” he said.