As of Friday, 13 November, 7 pm Berlin time: at the informal EU summit in Dublin, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that concrete peace talks with European participation are expected in the coming weeks for the first time. Germany’s participation is “absolutely clear”, he told journalists, according to Ukrinform. He also warned against a “second Anchorage moment” – a reference to the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska from which Europe was shut out – and asked Washington for “no surprises” ahead of Trump’s expected meeting with Putin next week on the sidelines of the APEC summit in China.
What is still missing is a name. The 27 member states have not agreed whether one person or a team should speak for Europe, nor who it should be. No decision was expected in Dublin; it is likely to slip to the special European Council on 26–27 November. Reports of a “negotiating team in place” therefore describe, at most, the group of officials who went to Abu Dhabi this week – not a chief negotiator.
Three candidates, one mandate problem
In Abu Dhabi on 10 and 11 November the EU was represented by Björn Seibert, Ursula von der Leyen’s chief of cabinet, and Anna-Maria Boura, adviser to Council President António Costa, alongside the national security advisers of France, Germany and the UK, plus Italy and NATO. An EU official said beforehand that Europeans would “not be in the room” while the US, Ukraine and Russia negotiate. After a coordination meeting the Council of the EU issued a joint statement: any settlement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and include credible security guarantees.
Who should speak in future is contested. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has put herself forward, saying she is the one representing Europe on foreign and security policy; many governments, however, see her as too uncompromising towards Moscow. Costa is seen as an even-handed broker, though a channel to Moscow opened by his office in the summer is viewed as a misstep. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wants a single envoy with a clear mandate: there are “too many different groupings”. Poland’s Donald Tusk replied that there are, if anything, “too many meetings”.
Behind the personnel row lies a substantive gap: the EU has not settled which concessions it would accept for a ceasefire or where its red lines lie. Kallas’s paper of demands on Moscow from February has only been discussed at foreign-minister level. Without a shared mandate, Il Foglio argues, Europe risks being a spectator in talks about its own security.
Moscow waves it off, Washington pushes
US envoy Jared Kushner said the deal “cannot” be concluded “without the Europeans being at the table”, adding that finding a single European spokesperson would be a bigger achievement than getting Russia to accept Europe in the talks. Volodymyr Zelensky said Europe “will be in the negotiating team” in the next round. The Kremlin played down the prospect; spokesman Dmitry Peskov, according to Al Jazeera, has likened European leaders to “spiders in a jar”.
Our assessment, with the caveat that the situation changes daily: the likeliest outcome is a halfway model in which Europe is present through advisers and a coordination group without formally sitting at the table. Full participation depends on whether Moscow yields – and whether the EU agrees on one voice in time. For Ukrainians in Germany this has practical weight: a deal will shape how quickly security guarantees, reconstruction and the question of return arise, and who pays. Earlier coverage: A seat at the table: will Europe join Ukraine peace talks?
Sources: Council of the EU (statement, 10 Nov), Ukrinform, Euronews, Al Jazeera, Il Foglio
