Russia has played down suggestions that European governments could soon join negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine, after US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner said Moscow had shown openness to a broader diplomatic format.
The disagreement highlights a central divide in the peace process: Moscow is calling for discussions about Europe’s wider security architecture, while European governments insist that any such conversation must follow a ceasefire and include a meaningful European role.
Russia sets conditions for European participation
Witkoff and Kushner travelled to Moscow on Thursday after two days of negotiations in Abu Dhabi. Their visit was intended to seek Russian President Vladimir Putin’s agreement to include European representatives in future talks.
Witkoff said Europeans could participate at the next meeting, describing their involvement as important because they are directly affected partners. Kushner also characterised the discussions as detailed and suggested they could support a multilateral negotiating format.
However, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov adopted a more cautious position. He said European governments first needed to decide whether they wanted “peace” or “war”, referring to their military assistance to Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly portrayed European weapons and ammunition deliveries to Kyiv as evidence that European countries are parties to the conflict.
That position means Russia is not currently presenting European participation as unconditional. Instead, Moscow is linking talks with Europe to an end to military support for Ukraine—an expectation European governments are unlikely to accept while the war continues.
Dispute over Europe’s security architecture
The discussions also exposed different priorities. Putin argued that negotiations should address the future security structure of the whole continent. He referred to US President Donald Trump’s proposed broad agreement, which he said could involve Europe as a whole.
Putin questioned why European leaders wanted to postpone such discussions until after peace had been established in Ukraine. He also argued that possible European troop deployments in Ukraine would amount to a continuation of the conflict.
European officials have taken the opposite view. They have argued that Russia’s invasion breached existing security arrangements and that any future framework must protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and give European countries a direct role in decisions affecting their security.
For European governments, discussions about a new security architecture cannot replace the immediate priority of stopping hostilities. The sequencing of negotiations—whether security guarantees come before or after a ceasefire—has therefore become a major point of contention.
Why European governments want a seat at the table
European countries have provided political, financial and military support to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion. They are also likely to face the consequences of any settlement, including possible security guarantees, reconstruction commitments, refugee support and arrangements affecting the continent’s defence posture.
Witkoff and Kushner argued that European participation was necessary to move the peace process forward. Kushner suggested that longer-term discussions about security between Russia, Ukraine and Europe could provide an incentive for European governments to engage.
Progress so far has reportedly been limited beyond prisoner exchanges. That has increased pressure on the parties to establish a format that includes the main actors and can address both immediate ceasefire questions and longer-term security concerns.
EU leaders consider a common diplomatic representative
European leaders are expected to discuss the possible appointment of a special envoy for the diplomatic process. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called for the European Union to select one common representative by the end of the month.
A single representative could make it easier for European governments to communicate a common position. It could also address Moscow’s criticism that European countries lack one clearly designated interlocutor.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described the appointment of such a representative as a precondition for European participation in negotiations. At the same time, Moscow has not imposed a complete ban on contact with European leaders. Putin recently held a telephone conversation with the leaders of Finland and Norway, showing that bilateral diplomatic channels remain available.
What happens next?
The next important step will be the European leaders’ discussion on whether to create a special diplomatic role and how that envoy would work with Ukraine, the United States and individual European governments.
Several issues remain unresolved:
- Whether Russia will accept a genuinely multilateral format involving European representatives.
- Whether European governments will support a ceasefire before broader security negotiations.
- What role Ukraine would have in discussions about European security.
- Whether the United States and European countries can agree on a common negotiating framework.
- Whether talks can produce progress beyond humanitarian measures such as prisoner exchanges.
For Ireland and other EU member states, the outcome could affect European security policy, future support for Ukraine and the design of any post-war settlement. Ireland’s military neutrality does not remove its interest in the diplomatic, humanitarian and economic consequences of the conflict.
Conclusion
Russia’s response has tempered expectations of an immediate breakthrough in Ukraine peace talks. Although US envoys have indicated that European participation may be possible, Moscow is attaching conditions that conflict with the position of European governments and Ukraine.
The immediate focus is now on whether EU leaders can agree on a common representative and a shared negotiating approach. Until the sides resolve the dispute over military support, ceasefire sequencing and Europe’s place at the table, a broader peace process remains uncertain.