While Steve Witkoff flies to St. Petersburg and offers Putin a three-way summit with Trump and Zelensky, Brussels is already counting who will speak to the Kremlin. If Europe ends up outside the room again, it will be left only to pay for someone else’s peace.
Politico puts it bluntly: European governments are increasingly admitting they need someone who can sit across from Putin. The problem is not a shortage of candidates. The problem is that almost no one is eager to take the job.
Putin long ago stopped treating the European Union as a serious interlocutor. Czech President Petr Pavel said it without diplomatic polish: the Russian leader “doesn’t want to talk to Ursula von der Leyen, doesn’t talk to Kaja Kallas,” and has already ignored most European leaders, including Macron. In that climate, hoping that Americans and Russians will somehow protect European interests on their own is naive.
Stubb
The name heard most often is Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Not because he is Europe’s most experienced diplomat. Because he is one of the few people Trump actually talks to. They play golf. In today’s Washington that carries more weight than any official channel.
The second argument is even stronger. Finland knows Russia not from briefing papers. It has 1,300 kilometres of shared border and a long, hard history with Moscow. One European diplomat told Politico almost word for word: “The Finns understand better than anyone on our side what it takes to feel secure in a situation like this.”
Stubb was already in Oslo with Zelensky and the American representatives. So far he is the only one who has not hidden and is ready to take political responsibility. Brussels has noticed.
Costa
The second option is European Council President António Costa. His logic is different. He formally represents all 27. His office already tested contact with the Kremlin through chief of staff Pedro Lourtie. In June that irritated several capitals. Costa’s defence was simple: Europe needs its own channel, not second-hand versions of other people’s conversations.
Last week at the Brussels summit leaders asked him directly whether it was time for him to speak to Putin. Costa refused. “Not now.” But the same diplomat who relayed the exchange believes Costa would still be a more acceptable intermediary than von der Leyen or Kallas. The latter two are widely seen as too firmly aligned with Ukraine. Costa comes across as softer, more cautious — “more of an honest broker.”
Why the choice is hard
Either man carries risks. Stubb is the president of a small country. Some capitals may decide Finland is punching above its weight. Costa is a man of the institutions. And Putin, by all appearances, does not take EU institutions seriously.
Inside the Union there is still no agreement. Some want maximum pressure and hard security guarantees for Ukraine. Others are ready for a quick ceasefire even at the price of painful concessions. Until those contradictions are resolved, any negotiator will work on a very short leash.
The European Commission insists the Union is already at the table. Björn Seibert, von der Leyen’s closest aide, was in Oslo. Territory, security and reconstruction were discussed. But that is still the technical level. When the conversation moves to a direct exchange with Putin, a completely different mandate will be required.
While Brussels argues over who to put forward, Trump and Putin are already talking. If the Europeans do not settle this question in the coming weeks, they really will be left only to pay for someone else’s peace.
Comments