After months dithering, Europe shows it's ready for talks with Russia

Finland and Norway have moved first by opening direct communication with Russia. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a phone call with Vladimir Putin about restarting the peace process. They acted as national leaders, not with a formal mandate for all Europe.

The European Union is taking a more organised step. The European Commission and European Council are preparing a joint team of senior officials for the next talks. Bjoern Seibert, Ursula von der Leyen's chief of cabinet, is tipped to lead it.

The next round is expected in Abu Dhabi in early November, although no exact date has been announced. Brussels now wants a multilateral format, bringing Europeans, Ukrainians, Americans and Russians into the same negotiations. Russia has not rejected that participation and says it wants to talk with all of Europe.

A multilateral peace negotiation includes several parties in one process, rather than leaving two governments to negotiate alone. In this case, it means Europe, Ukraine, the United States and Russia would participate together. The format matters because the war affects Ukraine directly and shapes Europe's wider security concerns.

The article gives a clear example of the proposed mechanism. Brussels says it wants Europeans, Ukrainians, Americans and Russians at the same table and at the same time. Until now, the United States has mainly spoken with Russia, with occasional three-way meetings that also included Ukraine.

This would be a first in the peace process described. It could give European and Ukrainian concerns a direct place in discussions about ending the war and arranging future security. Russia's apparent willingness to include Europe is also notable because it previously rejected European participation.

The proposed negotiations would involve four sides. They are the Europeans, Ukrainians, Americans and Russians. The article presents these as the main participants in a new, multilateral peace process.

The key feature is not only the number of sides, but their presence together. Brussels wants all four groups at the same table and at the same time. This differs from the earlier pattern, in which the United States mainly spoke with Russia and Ukraine joined only in occasional trilateral meetings.

The arrangement would give Europe and Ukraine a direct role in discussions that affect them. It would also create a wider forum for decisions about ending the invasion and Europe's future security. The article says Russia has not rejected this participation and has indicated that speaking only with Kyiv is insufficient.

Most European governments refused direct talks after Russia's full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The article describes this as diplomatic isolation. European leaders were divided over whether to end that policy, partly because Russia's demands appeared as maximalist as they had been at the war's beginning.

The resistance was especially clear among Germany, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the Baltic states. They warned that opening channels could not overcome Russia's hard-line position. When European Council President António Costa opened a channel in June, he faced political backlash and the effort was quietly paused.

Other governments argued that Europe could not afford to be absent from discussions about the continent's future. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Slovakia supported direct engagement. The disagreement reflected a tension between maintaining pressure on Russia and ensuring Europe had a voice in any settlement.

European leaders are reconsidering direct engagement because the relationship between Trump and Putin has changed the diplomatic balance. The article contrasts earlier confidence with current shock. Trump had previously promised to reimpose sanctions on Russian oil and discuss Patriot missile licences with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Now, Trump has cut a diesel deal with Putin, lifted long-standing sanctions on Russia, criticised Zelenskyy and demanded new elections in Ukraine. Sudden limits on Ukraine's use of Starlink and an early warning system have also alarmed European allies. These systems are described as crucial to Ukraine's defence.

Europe now fears Trump could push Ukraine into a take-it-or-leave-it capitulation. That possibility has encouraged leaders such as Stubb and Støre to organise talks and pushed Brussels toward direct participation. The goal is to ensure Europe is present as discussions begin shaping the war's outcome and the continent's security.

A US-Russia settlement without meaningful Ukrainian and European participation could leave Ukraine facing terms it did not help shape. It could also make Europe respond to a new security reality rather than help design it. The article's central fear is that Trump might push Ukraine toward a take-it-or-leave-it capitulation.

The mechanism is exclusion from decisions. If Washington and Moscow negotiated alone, Ukraine's military needs and Europe's concerns might receive less weight. Decisions about sanctions, security guarantees, military support or the future relationship with Russia could then be made without the parties most directly affected.

The article does not state that this outcome will happen. It shows why European leaders are trying to enter the process now. A multilateral format would give Ukraine and Europe a direct seat in negotiations and could prevent the peace process from being controlled mainly by the United States and Russia.

A continent's security architecture is the overall system that organizes safety among its countries. It includes alliances, military partnerships, defence capabilities, borders, diplomatic rules and agreements that reduce the risk of war. It matters because these elements determine how countries respond to threats and who makes security decisions.

Alliances can promise mutual support, while military aid changes a country's ability to defend itself. Borders define territory and can become central to peace agreements. Sanctions impose economic and political costs on an aggressor. A peace deal can formalize new security arrangements, restrictions or guarantees between former enemies.

The article connects this idea to Europe's concern about being excluded from negotiations. If Washington and Moscow decide Ukraine's future alone, they could shape Europe's security without European governments at the table. The article does not define the term directly; this explanation uses its established meaning and applies it to the issues it raises.