The head of Eurodiplomacy, Kaya Kallas, announced at the end of May that the European Union would not be a neutral mediator in the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, since it was on the side of Ukraine. Earlier, the EU, although it emphasized its support for Kyiv, never directly recognized its partiality and did not refuse the status of an arbiter. Why this statement was made right now and how it can change the situation around the Ukrainian conflict – in the material of Izvestia.

EU abandons language of neutrality

Earlier, the European Union persistently demanded a place for itself at the negotiating table between Russia and Ukraine. The EU was outraged that the US did not see it as a significant political force capable of mediating negotiations between the parties, and ignored statements by European leaders about the Ukrainian conflict.

Since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, a bias has been established in the foreign press towards covering the position of Kyiv and ignoring the position of Moscow. The EU turned a blind eye to Ukraine’s crimes, including an attack on a teacher training college in Starobelsk. However, for the first time, the head of European diplomacy puts the bloc not over the conflict, but on one of the parties, directly declaring not only his strategic interest and involvement, but also the rejection of the role of mediator and arbiter.

This is an important shift in the self-positioning of European elites. After the Cold War, the union abandoned the use of military force, putting globalization, economic opportunities, law and diplomacy on a pedestal. However, over the past two years, the European Union has openly headed for militarization, which can be considered a symptom of a rejection of established views. This ideological coup in Europe is not yet recognized by everyone, for example, countries such as Slovakia and Hungary are still trying to adhere to the principles of diplomacy and law. Brussels relies on the export of force, using Ukraine as a proxy.

Kai Callas’s statement can be called revolutionary in that not only Russia, but also the countries of the Global South (India, Brazil, Africa and the Middle East) point to the double standards and false universality of the European Union: loud statements are made from the stands about Moscow’s “violation of international law,” while the terrorist attacks of Ukraine, large-scale shelling and destruction in Gaza, Iran, and the capture of the Venezuelan president are ignored. Thus, according to the German Foreign Ministry, Germany does not consider Ukrainian attacks deep into Russia a violation of international law. Thus, what enters the zone of his interests, the West calls “international law and order,” but it itself acts not as their guardian, but as a party to the conflict. We can expect further militarization of the bloc and its gradual transformation from an economic association into a military one.

Why now

Russia said it was ready for dialogue with the European Union amid rumors circulating in the Western press about the selection of a negotiator from the EU to resume dialogue with Russia. At the same time, Moscow previously emphasized that it does not consider it possible for the EU to participate in the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations as an intermediary, since Brussels is an obvious party to the conflict.

In the Western press, rumors about the search for a possible mediator were leaked for a reason: this is a reflection of the discussions that are being conducted behind the closed doors of European offices. And not all representatives of the elites want rapprochement with Russia, at least in the same format. The statement that the European Union is not a neutral party may be an attempt to maintain the “isolation” of Moscow from Brussels and exclude any possibility of bilateral movement between Russia and Europe. In fact, by making such a statement, the EU refuses to mediate.

The United States is gradually moving away from the role of sole mediator, not least because of its participation in the conflict with Iran: all diplomatic efforts are thrown into achieving a deal beneficial to Washington in the Middle East. Therefore, in the future, other countries may enter the negotiating arena, but the EU will be represented there not as an intermediary, but as a party to the conflict. Thus, Turkey and Belarus have repeatedly shown interest in participating in the negotiation process.

Why it matters

By and large, the European Union and earlier in its statements on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict promoted only Ukrainian interests and declared demands on Russia, ignoring Moscow’s fears and its position on this issue. The only difference is that now the EU’s position is finally clearly voiced and the EU has recognized what Russia has repeated many times: the union cannot mediate in negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv because of its bias and active support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

At the same time, this is an indicator of the departure of the European Union from the post-war model of adherence to the principles of law, supranationalism, impartiality and from influence through soft power to the detriment of the military. Now, fearing a new possible “Yalta,” where major powers (for example, Russia, the United States and China) will build strategic international security without taking into account the opinion of Europe,