Czech president: Europe must close “gap” and play more active role in Ukraine peace talks

Pavel’s “gap” means Europe is not represented in the main diplomatic format discussing the war’s possible end. He believes European countries need a direct role because any settlement would affect the continent’s security and future political order. Europe also needs its own clear limits and goals before negotiations advance.

The article describes the current process as involving three parties: the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. Pavel says Europe should develop a common position, then propose alternatives that could help negotiations move forward. He also says American allies may not always represent European interests in the best way.

The problem is not simply a missing chair at the table. European countries still lack one clear view of future security architecture, and the EU does not represent all of Europe. Pavel warns that without unity, neither Russia nor the United States may treat European countries as full-fledged negotiating partners.

The main negotiating format currently includes the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. Pavel describes these as three parties discussing the war while Europe remains outside the formal arrangement. His concern is that European countries may be affected by decisions made without their direct participation.

Pavel links Europe’s absence to political disunity. European countries have certain positions within the EU, but he says the EU does not represent all of Europe. He also says countries have not agreed on a sufficiently coordinated vision for the continent’s future security architecture. Without that shared view, Europe cannot easily act as one diplomatic participant.

The practical result is a weaker European voice in negotiations. Pavel believes both Russia and the United States may fail to regard European countries as full-fledged partners unless they present a strong, unified position. He therefore urges Europe to define its objectives, limits, and alternatives.

A common European position means European countries would agree on the main terms they want from a settlement and the boundaries they will not accept. It would also cover the future security architecture of Europe. Pavel presents this unity as necessary for Europe to become a full-fledged participant in the diplomatic process.

The article gives two connected tasks. First, Europe should develop a common position on ending the war. Second, it should establish a shared vision for future continental security. Pavel also says Europe should have a clear idea of the negotiations’ outcome and limits, then offer alternatives that could make talks possible.

This position does not yet exist in a sufficiently clear form. Pavel says EU countries have certain positions, but the EU does not represent all of Europe. Until European countries coordinate more closely, he believes Russia and the United States may not treat them as equal negotiating partners.

Three countries or political groupings are directly named as participants in the current negotiating format: the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. Pavel describes this as a trilateral process, while saying Europe is not represented in it. The format therefore names two states and one broader political grouping rather than a larger European negotiating bloc.

The article also describes preparatory consultations held in Oslo on October 20. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met U.S. Special Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gar Støre taking part. European representatives joined those consultations as well.

Those consultations covered territory, security guarantees, and Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction. The next day, Witkoff traveled to Russia and met Vladimir Putin at the Konstantinovsky Palace in St. Petersburg. Witkoff later said discussions would continue through trilateral technical-level talks, preserving the three-party format Pavel criticized.

If European countries cannot agree, they risk having major decisions made without a strong European voice. The negotiations concern ending the war, but Pavel also connects them to the broader postwar architecture of European security. That means Europe could have less influence over arrangements that directly shape its future.

The key mechanism is diplomatic credibility. Pavel says Europe needs a common position, clear goals, and defined limits. A unified position would allow European countries to act as a full participant and propose alternatives during negotiations. Without it, different national positions may appear fragmented and difficult for other parties to treat as authoritative.

Pavel specifically warns that neither Russia nor the United States will regard European countries as full-fledged partners without a strong, unified position. The article does not describe a final outcome, but it presents coordination as Europe’s route to a more active role in peace talks and postwar security planning.

Pavel does not reject diplomatic contact with Moscow. He says such contact is necessary, but it should be based on specific conditions and results. In this context, diplomacy would need measurable purpose rather than exchanges without clear requirements or outcomes.

According to Pavel, Moscow is not showing willingness to pursue a genuine peaceful settlement. He says Russia has not expressed readiness for peace talks, except on the conditions of Ukraine’s surrender and President Zelensky’s resignation. Pavel calls those demands impossible for Ukraine and says they are impossible for Europe on principle.

This creates a sharp divide between the need for contact and the conditions currently described by Pavel. He supports continued diplomatic efforts, but not an approach that accepts surrender as the basis for talks. The article says Witkoff’s discussions with Russia will continue in a trilateral technical format, while Russia’s broader willingness to compromise remains absent.

A group cannot automatically act as one diplomatic actor simply because its members share geography. Countries may assess threats differently, prioritize different national interests, or maintain different relationships with larger powers. Those differences can make it difficult to agree on common goals, negotiating limits, and acceptable outcomes.

The article illustrates this problem through Europe’s security debate. Pavel says European countries have certain positions within the EU, but the EU does not represent all of Europe. He also says Europe lacks a sufficiently coordinated vision for its future security architecture. That makes it harder to present one authoritative position in negotiations.

The diplomatic consequence is reduced influence. Pavel believes Russia and the United States may not view European countries as full-fledged partners unless they unite around a strong position. The article therefore presents coordination as the mechanism for turning separate national views into a credible European role in talks.