Jolanda Flubacher / WEF / Flickr
To hypothetically secure a seat at the peace table, Brussels must find a single worthy individual. This proves to be extremely difficult
Unexpectedly, Finnish President Alexander Stubb has stepped onto the European political stage. He was even lucky enough to play golf with the American president, spending six or seven hours at his estate. While few know how Donald Trump holds a golf stick, the representative of Suomi once competed internationally in this sport. Europe wonders how Stubb received such a warm welcome, while in the U.S. he is considered an «envoy of the globalists».
Upon his return from the U.S., the respected son of the Land of a Thousand Lakes advocated for the creation of a special EU representative to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
The issue has been circulating in Europe for several months, particularly since Trump moved into the White House and initiated his first steps regarding Ukraine, leaving the EU out of the negotiations.
Initially, Kiev triggered the discussion, alarmed by the commencement of direct U.S.-Russian contacts. The Ukrainian president’s office suggested that a unified EU representative should have the same status as Trump and Putin. Zelensky himself echoed the call, asserting that Europe should have its representative.
The logic was simple: due to the difficulties within the EU to form a unified stance (especially the different positions of Hungary, Slovakia and some others), several representatives had been sent before. But this time the situation is different. If the EU manages to secure a seat at the peace negotiations (which is far from guaranteed), it certainly won’t be allowed to send a full delegation.
Italy and Spain raised this issue at the March 27 summit of the «coalition of the willing» in Paris.
Their initiative angered the European Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas. The Estonian is said to have remarked that it was pointless to create a new position that would duplicate her own role. She claimed responsibility for foreign policy and thus for the Ukraine issue.
Yet it’s abundantly clear that neither Moscow nor Washington would accept representatives from the European Commission (specifically President Ursula von der Leyen, Kallas, or Slovenian Commissioner Marta Kos), all known for overtly anti-Russian stances closely aligning with Kiev’s positions.
Meanwhile, Europe began searching for a suitable candidate for this politically risky position.
The British weekly The Economist and several other European media suggested French President Emmanuel Macron as a potential EU envoy. Macron himself is probably dreaming of such an appointment. After all, France is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council — high status indeed. But northern and central European «hawks» mistrust him, especially when it comes to Russia, with whom he sought a strategic dialogue before the Ukraine conflict broke out. Other European capitals see Macron as overly focused on his own image and interests and inclined to prolong the conflict.
Another frequently mentioned potential candidate is Czech President Petr Pavel, a former head of NATO’s Military Committee who is familiar with military issues.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also wishes to be involved on the Ukrainian front alongside the EU. But the UK is outside the EU framework, and a negotiator must have an official mandate, which only the European Parliament can grant. This route is therefore likely to be closed to the British representative.
At present, speculation about candidates remains a matter of conjecture.
Personally, I speculate that an acceptable representative (for Moscow) might have been, for example, the late Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi or former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who was under intense pressure at home and ended up in hospital with «emotional burnout». In addition, representatives from the Baltic countries and Poland should be avoided because of their tendency to take emotionally charged, biased positions.
Finally, a curious detail about Stubb, who has become something of a national figure, and his previously neutral country: according to Finnish scholarly thought, the only viable solution for the Kiev regime is «Finlandization».
This little-known political term refers to active cooperation between two states in domestic and foreign policy, allowing them to maintain neutrality toward each other. One party acts as the «older brother», setting certain conditions that the «younger» state must meet. The latter retains substantial freedoms, avoids formal alliances, and maintains its independence. The term originated in the second half of the 20th century, describing the Soviet-Finnish relationship after World War II.
Could Trump have suggested this peculiar model to Finland’s prime minister during their golf game? Who knows.