The European Union cannot assume the role of mediator
In the early hours after a Brussels summit that ran past midnight, the European Union confronted a question as old as alliance itself: who speaks for the many when the stakes are highest? France and Germany insisted that any dialogue with Vladimir Putin over Ukraine must flow through a smaller, self-appointed inner circle, while most other EU leaders defended the right of the broader union to represent Europe's collective voice. The dispute, sharpened by undisclosed contacts between the European Council's office and Moscow, revealed that Europe's capacity to act as one may be its most fragile asset precisely when unity matters most.
- A Brussels summit stretched two hours past schedule as leaders clashed behind closed doors — without aides or phones — over who holds the authority to speak to Putin about ending the war in Ukraine.
- Macron and Merz arrived prepared to shut down quiet diplomatic outreach that European Council President Costa had already set in motion through his chief of staff, only to find most of their peers standing against them.
- Several leaders expressed what diplomats called unprecedented fury upon learning through a news report — not official channels — that Moscow had already been contacted twice on Europe's behalf.
- Estonia's prime minister invoked the lessons of history, warning that back-channel talks with dictators are not diplomacy but danger, while Belgium's leader cautioned that the first question remains whether Putin wants peace at all.
- As Trump signals renewed attention to Ukraine after a provisional Iran deal, Europe's fractured voice risks leaving it a spectator in the negotiations that will define its own future.
A European Council summit in Brussels, stretching past midnight on Thursday, laid bare a deep fracture in EU leadership over the most consequential question facing the continent: whether, and through whom, Europe should speak to Vladimir Putin about ending the war in Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz arrived prepared to challenge what they saw as a dangerous overreach. António Costa, the European Council President, had quietly authorized his chief of staff to contact Moscow officials twice in recent weeks — contacts that most EU leaders discovered only when Bloomberg reported them the day before the summit. The French and German leaders wanted the practice stopped and the lines of authority clarified. What they found instead was that a substantial majority of their peers disagreed with them, backing Costa's right to establish communication channels on behalf of all 27 member states.
The closed-door session, held without aides or cellphones given its sensitivity, split the room into two distinct camps. Macron and Merz argued that if talks with Putin ever became necessary, the "E3" — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — should lead them, not the broader EU machinery. Most other leaders rejected that claim outright, insisting that European interests in any negotiation must be represented collectively. Several diplomats described the fury in the room as unprecedented, with Estonia's prime minister publicly warning against back-channel diplomacy with dictators.
The dispute was further complicated by conflicting accounts of what had actually been disclosed. Costa's team maintained that Germany, France, the UK, and the European Commission had all been informed before the Moscow contacts were made. Three other diplomats contradicted this, saying Berlin had received no warning. The secrecy itself became a wound. Merz, according to one diplomat, made his displeasure known to Costa privately, preferring to avoid open confrontation at the table while leaving no doubt about his view.
The urgency of the moment was sharpened by events beyond Europe's borders. Donald Trump, having struck a provisional deal with Iran, signaled at the G7 that his attention was turning back to Ukraine — raising the prospect of American-brokered talks that could sideline European capitals entirely. Belgium's prime minister offered perhaps the most grounded observation as he left the talks: before deciding who negotiates, Europe must first determine whether Putin has any genuine interest in negotiating at all.
What the summit produced was not consensus but a hardened division — the EU's largest economies insisting on a veto over the bloc's diplomatic moves, while most other members refused to grant it. As the possibility of consequential talks over Ukraine's future draws closer, Europe's inability to speak with one voice may cost it a seat at the table it most needs to occupy.
The Brussels summit that stretched past midnight on Thursday exposed a fracture running through the European Union's leadership over the most consequential question facing the continent: whether, when, and how to talk to Vladimir Putin about ending the war in Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, the presidents of France and Germany respectively, arrived at the European Council meeting prepared to challenge what they saw as a dangerous overreach. António Costa, the European Council President who speaks on behalf of all 27 EU governments, had been quietly reaching out to Moscow through his chief of staff, Pedro Lourtie. The French and German leaders wanted it stopped—or at minimum, wanted the record clarified about who had the authority to negotiate on Europe's behalf. What they found instead was that most of their peers disagreed with them.
The meeting, held without aides or even cellphones because of its sensitivity, lasted two hours longer than scheduled. According to five EU diplomats and officials briefed on the closed-door conversation, the room split into two distinct camps. Macron and Merz argued that now was not the time to talk to Putin, and that if such talks ever became necessary, the "E3"—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—should lead them, not the broader European Union. A French government official later told reporters that Macron had "set the record straight and put things in the right order." But a substantial majority of other leaders sided with Costa, arguing that the EU itself, not a smaller group of nations, should represent European interests in any negotiation with Russia.
The tension had been building for months as the bloc wrestled with how to balance military support for Ukraine against the possibility of diplomatic settlement. The urgency sharpened after U.S. President Donald Trump struck a provisional peace deal with Iran and signaled at the G7 summit in France earlier in the week that his focus was turning back to Ukraine. With American-led efforts to end the war appearing stalled, European capitals had grown divided over whether to prioritize helping Ukraine win on the battlefield or to pursue negotiation.
What made the summit particularly contentious was how Costa's outreach had unfolded. Lourtie had contacted Moscow officials twice in recent weeks, but most EU leaders learned about these calls only after Bloomberg reported them on Wednesday. Several leaders expressed what diplomats described as unprecedented fury. Estonia's Prime Minister Kristen Michal was blunt in his public response: "The European Union cannot assume the role of mediator in these negotiations. Suggestions that alternative channels or backdoor diplomatic tracks are needed are misguided." He invoked history's warnings about negotiating with dictators through back channels.
Costa's team defended the contacts as merely establishing a communication channel for future use, describing them as brief and substantive. They said Lourtie had informed Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission before making the calls. But three other diplomats contradicted this account, saying Berlin had not been warned. The secrecy itself became part of the problem. One EU diplomat working on the issue said some countries were "furious" about being kept in the dark. Merz, according to a diplomat from a major European country, made clear to Costa "in other ways" that he viewed the outreach as unprofessional, though he wanted to avoid an open confrontation at the summit table.
The clash also exposed other faultlines. Italy and Poland, which together form an informal "E5," were frustrated at being excluded from initial talks between the E3 and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that preceded the summit. Some EU officials questioned why the European Council should take on diplomatic responsibilities at all, rather than the European Commission or the EU's foreign policy apparatus. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, exiting the talks, offered a more measured view: the first question was whether Putin actually wanted to negotiate. Until that was answered, only Costa could represent the EU. If Putin showed willingness, then Europe would need to decide again how to proceed.
What emerged from the late-night session was not consensus but a hardened division. The EU's largest economies had staked out a position that the bloc's diplomatic machinery should not move without their approval. Most other leaders had rejected that claim. As Trump's attention swung back toward Ukraine and the possibility of American-brokered talks, Europe's inability to speak with one voice risked leaving it sidelined in the very negotiations that would shape the continent's future.
Notable Quotes
The European Union cannot assume the role of mediator in these negotiations. Suggestions that alternative channels or backdoor diplomatic tracks are needed are misguided.— Estonia's Prime Minister Kristen Michal
The first question is whether Putin wants to negotiate. Until then, no one other than Costa can represent the European Union.— Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Macron and Merz object so strongly to Costa's outreach? Was it really about the principle, or about power?
Both. They genuinely believe the E3—France, Germany, Britain—should lead any talks with Russia because they have the military and diplomatic weight. But they were also blindsided. Costa didn't tell them he was calling Moscow. That breach of trust made it personal.
So the real problem was the secrecy?
Partly. But there's something deeper. Macron and Merz think talking to Putin now, before Ukraine has leverage, is a mistake. They want to preserve the option to negotiate later, from a position of strength. Costa seems to think establishing a channel now, while Trump is distracted, is smart.
And the other 24 EU leaders sided with Costa?
Most of them did. They saw it differently—that the EU as a whole should represent itself, not defer to Paris and Berlin. Some of the smaller countries were probably also tired of being excluded from the big decisions.
What happens next? Does this get resolved?
Not easily. The summit exposed a structural problem. The EU has no agreed framework for who speaks to Russia, when, or how. Until they build one, you'll keep seeing these collisions.
And Ukraine in all this?
Zelenskyy had actually asked Europe to get involved in peace talks. So Costa was responding to that request. But now Europe is arguing with itself instead of presenting options to him.