Finnish President Alexander Stubb’s positive response to the scenario of him being designated by the EU as the bloc’s mediator for talks with Russia, which could also include it replacing the US’ role in mediating between Russia and Ukraine, renewed discussion about the merits of this possibility. Putin suggested in response to a question at an event after the Victory Day parade that his friend Gerhard Schroeder could play such a role, but the EU rubbished his proposal and is looking for someone else.
Whoever they ultimately settle on, the question remains about whether there’d even be any benefit to this, and it’s here where two schools of thought emerge. The relatively pragmatist one posits that it’s better for there to be some dialogue with the EU than none even if it’s ultimately fruitless. Likewise, they feel the same about dialogue with Ukraine, ergo the perceived merits of the EU replacing the US’ role. It’s possible, they believe, that this could lead to some tangible progress in some way or another.
The relatively more hardline school takes a much more cynical approach. According to them, fruitless dialogue is a waste of time and could also create the perception at home that Russia is considering unilateral concessions, thus risking a crisis of confidence among the population with all that could entail. In their view, dialogue should only be recommenced with both once they’re finally willing to agree to tangible compromises with Russia, which can be conveyed to them through existing channels.
The past year of US-mediated Russian-Ukrainian talks resulted in several rounds of prisoner swaps and exchanges of soldiers’ remains but no diplomatic breakthroughs. The closest that they came was the “Spirit of Anchorage” after the Putin-Trump summit in that Alaskan city that was recently described by an RT contributor as Putin promising to cease hostilities if Trump convinces Zelensky to withdraw from Donbass. Despite reported US pressure, Ukraine refused to budge, and no coercive US actions followed.
All the while, the US has rolled back Russian influence across the world through Trump 2.0’s Neo-Reagan Doctrine with an emphasis on the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which doesn’t inspire Russian confidence in the US’ commitment to a fair post-conflict partnership. A “cordon sanitaire” is also being assembled in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, its entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts.
To make everything even more troubling for Russia’s national security interests, “The Brits, French, & Germans Are Now Right On Russia’s Doorstep”, while “Kazakhstan’s Self-Declaration As The Golden Horde’s Successor Could Pose A Threat To Russia” by kindling secular Muslim insurgencies. These factors greatly reduce the likelihood that the EU will seriously consider a series of mutual compromises with Russia. It’ll instead likely exploit any revived dialogue for talking down to Russia and issuing ultimatums.
Therefore, even if Russia agrees to receive whoever the EU might appoint as its mediator, their talks will probably go nowhere unless Russia either credibly signals that it’ll resort to kinetic means for breaking the West’s military-strategic encirclement or agrees to peacefully subordinate itself to the West. Subordination is unthinkable since Putin would never approve of that, nor would the state and society go along with it, so the only real scenarios are stalled talks or Russian muscle-flexing breaking the deadlock.
