The telephone conversation between Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and Russian President Vladimir Putin was met with misunderstanding or criticism in the EU.
On Friday (November 15), Scholz spoke to Putin by phone for the first time in nearly two years and, according to his own statement, asked the Kremlin chief to “withdraw his troops” and be ready. to negotiate with Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj accused Scholz of the online service X of opening ”Pandora’s Box”.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell made it clear on Monday (18 November) in Brussels that he considered quick military aid to Ukraine more important than talks with Putin.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis criticized that phone calls with Putin should not be made “out of weakness”. Otherwise, Russia would abuse it for its own purposes.
Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said that Putin only listens to the facts on the battlefield. Therefore, the news that the United States has removed its restrictions on arms supplied to Ukraine is “very important”.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock, said that the chancellor’s phone call with Putin again showed that the Kremlin leader wanted to ”destroy Ukraine and our European peace in freedom.” She responded evasively when asked if Germany had to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine now.
Borrell said he was not informed of the content of the conversation between Scholz and the Kremlin leader. However, he himself has no intention of talking to Putin on the phone. Given that Donald Trump was elected as the next president of the USA, the EU must “support Ukraine as much as we can, and faster.”
At a Council of Ministers likely to be under his leadership, the EU’s outgoing foreign policy chief expressed his frustration at European “indolence” in Russia’s war of aggression, which has already lasted 1,000 days on Tuesday. “Every time we made decisions to support Ukraine, it took too long,” Borrell criticized. The Spaniard is to hand over his office to the former Prime Minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, on 1 December.
[Bearbeitet von Kjeld Neubert]
– What are the implications of European leaders’ skepticism towards dialogue with Putin?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Foreign Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome to the interview, everyone. Today, we have an expert on international relations, Dr. Elena Novikova, joining us to discuss the recent phone conversation between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Dr. Novikova, thank you for being here.
Dr. Elena Novikova: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such a critical topic.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Scholz’s call with Putin has received mixed reactions across the EU. What are your thoughts on the timing of this conversation?
Dr. Novikova: The timing is quite significant. Scholz reached out for the first time in nearly two years, which suggests a shift in German policy. However, the European response has been largely skeptical. Figures like Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell emphasize that military aid to Ukraine should take precedence over dialogue with Putin. This indicates a lack of confidence in Putin’s willingness to engage sincerely in negotiations.
Editor: Indeed. Zelenskyy’s comment about “opening Pandora’s Box” suggests he believes that this dialogue could lead to unforeseen consequences. How do you interpret that?
Dr. Novikova: Zelenskyy’s metaphor is quite powerful. It reflects a genuine concern that engaging with Putin may grant him legitimacy or a foothold in negotiations, while Ukraine is under severe pressure from the ongoing conflict. Zelenskyy is wary of any perceived weakness that could embolden Russia’s aggressive posture.
Editor: And we’ve heard criticism from EU leaders like Lithuanian Foreign Minister Landsbergis. He stated that such conversations shouldn’t stem from weakness. Can you elaborate on that point?
Dr. Novikova: Certainly. Landsbergis’s statement underscores a broader sentiment within the EU that dialogue with authoritarian leaders like Putin needs to be approached with caution. There is a fear that prolonged engagement might be interpreted as a sign of weakness, allowing Russia to manipulate the situation to its advantage. The context must be clear: peace talks must not come at the expense of addressing the reality of aggression.
Editor: Dutch Foreign Minister Veldkamp mentioned that Putin only listens to the facts on the battlefield. Do you think that military support, as indicated by the U.S. lifting restrictions on arms supplies to Ukraine, is the best way to ensure peace?
Dr. Novikova: It’s a complex equation. While military support can certainly enhance Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, it’s also essential to seek a diplomatic resolution. However, the reality is that Putin operates pragmatically, often responding to displays of strength. The U.S. lifting restrictions is significant because it signals unwavering support for Ukraine, which can potentially recalibrate the power dynamics and motivate more serious negotiations from the Russian side.
Editor: As we look ahead, what do you think is the most effective approach for the EU and its leaders in dealing with Russia?
Dr. Novikova: An effective approach would be a combination of military support and unified diplomatic messaging. The EU must stand firm in its support for Ukraine while also leaving the door open for negotiations that require real concessions from Russia. Engaging with Russia should be strategic and contingent on positive actions, rather than appearing desperate for dialogue.
Editor: Dr. Novikova, thank you for your insightful analysis. This is undoubtedly a dynamic and challenging situation and your expertise sheds light on the complexities facing Europe today.
Dr. Novikova: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to keep these discussions active as the situation continues to evolve.