An EU Special Representative for Ukraine Peace Talks

Now in its fifth year, Russia’s war against Ukraine has entered a new military phase: more static frontlines and escalating drone and missile strikes on civilians. In parallel, diplomatic efforts have moved into a highly complex negotiating phase, with the United States continuing to dominate efforts to facilitate negotiations, and Russia still showing little interest in reaching a sustainable settlement. Europe, meanwhile, finds itself in a paradoxical position. Europeans are funding Ukraine’s survival and preparing to guarantee its future security, and they will face the consequences if peace negotiations fail. Yet they remain largely sidelined, with far less influence over the terms of a potential settlement than either Washington or Moscow. 

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the EU and its member states have provided Ukraine with over €220 billion in support, including almost €89 billion for its military and defense capabilities. This makes the EU the primary long-term supporter of Ukraine’s defense and economic survival. However, the EU is also an affected party, as the outcome of the war will determine the stability of its eastern frontier, the credibility of its enlargement policy, the trajectory of European defense integration, and even the chances of restoring the transatlantic partnership. Yet, despite the enormous stakes involved, the EU remains structurally underrepresented in the current negotiation formats. Washington speaks directly to Moscow, while Europeans are all too often briefed after the fact. This dynamic is neither sustainable nor strategically wise for a continent whose security will be defined by the terms of any eventual settlement. 

Ukraine's reconstruction needs are already estimated at over €500 billion for the next decade. Investment on that scale, however, cannot be insulated from security concerns. Thus, reconstruction, deterrence, and EU integration are intertwined aspects of a broader European challenge. The United States cannot offer Ukraine EU membership, nor can it determine European sanctions policy or commit European governments to decades of reconstruction, military assistance, or the deployment of European forces. These considerations only add to the existing need for a formal European voice in the negotiations. 

A genuinely EU-led approach to the peace talks must set out clear, enforceable guarantees. These should include long-term military assistance that is predictable rather than reactive, joint defense production to strengthen both Ukraine's resilience and the European industrial base, and the gradual integration of Ukraine into the EU's emerging security and defense architecture. The €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan agreed in April 2026, with €60 billion set aside for defense, is an important move in that direction, but a wider consensus will be needed to sustain assistance over the longer term, as Ukraine moves toward full membership. Europeans must also be prepared to consider establishing a multinational presence in Ukraine to deter any renewed aggression following a ceasefire. These measures would demonstrate the seriousness, credibility, and maturity of the European commitment to the peace talks, as well as provide a foundation for lasting and just peace. 

The question of who should represent Europe in Ukraine’s peace negotiations is rising on the EU’s political agenda, with some analysts calling for a dedicated EU special representative for the Ukraine peace process. Italy, too, has explicitly called for a single European representative, and EU foreign ministers have debated how the EU should organize its diplomatic engagement with Russia. The union must now resolve this ambiguity by appointing a dedicated EU Special Representative for the Ukraine peace process, backed by a strong political mandate from EU leaders. This representative would provide the EU with a direct and coherent voice in the negotiations, translating European interests into clear positions on issues requiring European involvement—such as safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty and its path towards EU membership. For Ukraine, this path depends on continued democratic reform, particularly in the areas of rule of law, law enforcement, and anti-corruption, which are essential to retaining the confidence of Ukraine's European partners.  

The representative would also ensure that any ceasefire does not imply European recognition of territorial changes imposed by force; coordinate the sequencing and potential lifting of sanctions with Russia’s compliance with the peace agreement; link reconstruction to Ukraine’s long-term security; and ensure that any settlement is underpinned by credible and enforceable security guarantees. 

Appointing an envoy would address only half of the problem, however. A European representative could speak with one voice only if the EU first develops one. This is where the creation of a European Security Council could be particularly relevant, as Europeans currently rely on a patchwork of contact groups, ad hoc coalitions, and institutional mechanisms for security decision-making. A European Security Council, embedded within the European Council and chaired by its president, could provide a permanent, high-level political forum in which European leaders could formulate common strategic positions and respond more rapidly to security crises. Such a forum would also provide those member states that wish to collaborate more closely on security and defense issues with the opportunity to do so. It would reaffirm that the EU can act with agility and efficiency in times of crisis, as the decisions would be made by qualified majority voting. Crucially, Ukraine itself should participate in such a council as a permanent associate member, alongside EU member states and key partners such as the United Kingdom and Norway. The European Security Council would help to formulate the European position, and an EU special representative would then take this position to the negotiating table. 

Those expected to guarantee the future peace in Ukraine must also play a decisive part in negotiating it. To achieve this, the EU must act on three levels simultaneously: politically, by establishing a European Security Council capable of forging a unified stance; diplomatically, by appointing an EU special representative for Ukrainian peace negotiations with the power to carry the EU's vision into the talks; and strategically, by firmly anchoring Ukraine within Europe's emerging security architecture.

Dr. Ionela Ciolan is a research officer on European foreign policy, security, and defense at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies. She was a 2023–2024 GMF ReThink.CEE Fellow.

This publication was prepared with the support of the program "Strengthening Ukraine's EU Alignment in the Rule of Law" (3*E4U), which is implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Foreign Office and the EU. It does not necessarily reflect the official position of the EU or its partners.  

The views expressed herein are those solely of the author(s). GMF as an institution does not take positions.