Merz: Lasting peace in Ukraine impossible without Europe's participation

“Europe’s participation” means European involvement in shaping the negotiations and any final agreement. Merz says Europe must be “at the negotiating table” and that European partners’ positions must be considered. This makes participation more than simply supporting a deal from outside.

The article gives examples of national involvement. A German government representative attended consultations in Oslo. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere joined talks there. European representatives also took part in preparatory consultations. These examples point clearly to individual European countries and their representatives.

The article does not say whether EU institutions, such as the European Commission or the European Council, would participate directly. Therefore, the safest answer is that it requires European countries and representatives, while the exact role of EU institutions remains unspecified. Merz’s central point is that no lasting peace can be negotiated over the heads of Europeans or Ukrainians.

The diplomatic effort brings together the governments directly involved in the war and several European partners. Ukraine is represented by President Volodymyr Zelensky. The United States is represented by President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Russia is represented by Vladimir Putin. Germany’s role is voiced by Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The Oslo talks also included Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere. A German government representative attended that meeting, and other European representatives joined preparatory consultations. The article therefore describes both national leaders and official envoys working through several channels.

Germany says it supports any diplomatic format that could end the war quickly. Further consultations are planned among foreign policy advisors. Witkoff and Putin also discussed continuing negotiations through trilateral technical-level talks. The article does not name every participant in those technical talks, so their full membership remains unspecified.

The negotiations are not limited to stopping the fighting. They also address the territorial questions created by Russia’s war, the security guarantees Ukraine may need, and how Ukraine could rebuild after the conflict. These issues matter because a ceasefire alone would not settle disputed territory or establish confidence about what follows.

The article gives a concrete example from the October 20 meeting in Oslo. Zelensky, Witkoff, Stubb, and Stoere participated, while European representatives joined preparatory consultations. The parties discussed all three areas: territorial issues, security guarantees, and Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. The discussions therefore combine immediate diplomatic questions with longer-term planning.

The article does not explain the proposed borders, the content of any guarantees, or the reconstruction arrangements. It only identifies these as subjects under discussion. Future consultations, including a planned meeting of foreign policy advisors, may develop them further, while technical-level talks are also expected to continue.

The article mentions three already held diplomatic settings: the Berlin Process Leaders’ Summit in Montenegro, the October 20 meeting in Oslo, and the October 21 meeting in St. Petersburg. It also mentions preparatory consultations linked to Oslo. A further meeting of foreign policy advisors is planned in the coming days, so the process is still active.

Several levels are connected. Political leaders and senior representatives discuss the broad direction. Preparatory consultations bring European representatives into the process. Foreign policy advisors provide another diplomatic channel. Witkoff and Putin said negotiations would continue through trilateral technical-level talks, adding a more detailed working level.

The article does not provide a single official count of all meetings or consultations. It describes separate events and channels, some of which may overlap. The clearest picture is a layered process: summit diplomacy, leader-level talks, preparatory consultations, advisor meetings, and technical negotiations working toward an end to the war.

If Ukraine or its European partners are excluded from an agreement, Merz says it would not be a lasting solution. His warning is political rather than a detailed legal prediction. He argues that an agreement cannot endure if the countries most affected by it are not part of the process or do not see their positions reflected.

The article gives a direct example of the mechanism. Germany supports any format that could end the war quickly, but says future agreements must take into account both Ukraine’s position and those of its European partners. Merz describes a deal reached “over the heads” of Ukrainians or Europeans as unsuitable and calls for a joint effort.

The practical consequence, according to Merz, is that negotiations should include Europe and Ukraine before an agreement is reached. The article does not say exactly what would happen afterward if they objected. It does say that diplomatic consultations will continue, including among foreign policy advisors, to seek a durable outcome.

A Europe-inclusive format would give European countries a direct role in discussing and shaping the settlement. It would not treat Europe as an outside supporter that is informed only afterward. Merz specifically says Europe must be at the negotiating table and that European partners’ positions must influence future agreements.

The Oslo meeting illustrates this broader approach. Zelensky and Witkoff held talks with Stubb and Stoere also participating. European representatives joined preparatory consultations, and a German government representative attended. This creates more participants and consultation channels than a narrowly focused meeting among Russia, Ukraine, or the United States alone.

The article does not define a formal Europe-wide structure or explain voting rights. It does show the intended difference: decisions would be developed with Ukraine and European partners, not over their heads. Germany says any format serving a rapid end to the war is welcome, provided it supports a joint and lasting effort.

The article presents durable peace as more than a quick agreement between negotiating parties. It must include Ukraine and its European partners, because Merz says a settlement reached over their heads would not last. Their participation is treated as a foundation for legitimacy and shared responsibility.

Security guarantees are one of the subjects discussed in Oslo. Their inclusion shows that the talks address what could support Ukraine’s security after the war, alongside territory and reconstruction. The article does not explain who would provide guarantees, what they would promise, or how they would be enforced. Those details cannot be inferred from the text.

The current diplomatic effort therefore combines broad political participation with several working channels. Germany supports formats that can end the war quickly, but insists that Ukraine’s and Europe’s positions be considered. Continued advisor-level consultations and technical talks may help develop a settlement that the involved parties can jointly support.