Former United Nations Assistant Secretary General Michael von der Schulenburg delivered sharp criticism of the European Union over its stance toward the war in Ukraine, stating that the bloc is not only unwilling to contribute substantially to peace negotiations but also not capable of doing so.
Participating in a Q&A session at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) Summit on Reclaiming the West, Schulenburg said that the European Parliament—of which he is a member—has become a ‘scary place’, increasingly dominated by war rhetoric. According to him, MEPs talk about conflicts and vote on war-related resolutions with alarming ease, often without reflecting on the real human consequences of such decisions. ‘Resolutions on Ukraine never include wording about peace negotiations, only the continuation of war,’ he stressed.
The former UN diplomat, who has participated in several peace negotiations throughout his career, recalled the infamous European Parliament debate during Hungary’s EU presidency in 2024, when Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was heavily criticized for initiating a diplomatic peace mission aimed at opening channels for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
Schulenburg emphasized that while he is ‘politically very different’ from Orbán, on the issue of peace, he is ‘squarely behind him’. He described the reaction of the European Parliament and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as deeply troubling, noting that Orbán was attacked simply for attempting to initiate dialogue. ‘If you want to present what the problem with the European Union is, this is exactly it,’ he said.
Quoting Pope Leo XIV, Schulenburg added: ‘History belongs to the peacemakers, not the warmongers.’ He argued that the European Union today needs peace in Ukraine even more urgently than Russia does, particularly as Europe already faces growing instability due to the war in Iran, rising energy prices, and renewed risks of migration and terrorism.
According to Schulenburg, Europe’s current approach is strategically misguided. He warned that the continent is simultaneously affected by two major conflicts—Ukraine and the Middle East—while having little real influence over either. In his view, Europe has largely lost credibility in the Middle East and should instead concentrate its diplomatic efforts on restoring peace on its own continent. ‘If you want a sovereign Ukraine, you have to talk to Russia,’ he said, emphasizing that negotiations are an unavoidable part of ending wars.
Schulenburg drew historical parallels with the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s. Although Iraq initially violated international law by launching the conflict, the war ultimately ended through negotiations, with Iraq eventually paying reparations. The lesson, he argued, is that wars are resolved through diplomacy rather than moral posturing. ‘Wars are immoral, but they are not about morality—they are about interests,’ he said.
He also revealed that he had been involved in diplomatic efforts during the early stages of the Ukraine war and closely followed the negotiations held in Istanbul in 2022. According to Schulenburg, the talks represented a major diplomatic breakthrough at the time. ‘Ukraine and Russia were doing exactly what the UN Charter requires in a war situation—they were negotiating,’ he said, adding that the parties had already agreed on a ten-point framework.
‘Schulenburg described the Istanbul negotiations as a historic opportunity for peace that ultimately collapsed largely because of Western powers’
Schulenburg described the Istanbul negotiations as a historic opportunity for peace that ultimately collapsed largely because of Western powers. According to his account, NATO signalled before the negotiations that any agreement would be unacceptable unless Russia withdrew completely and Ukraine was subsequently granted NATO membership. He argued that this position contributed to the collapse of the talks, after which communication between the parties ceased entirely. ‘That was a great tragedy,’ he said.
The former UN official also criticized the ‘unrealistic promises’ made by European leaders regarding Ukraine. He argued that the EU lacks both the military and financial capacity to provide the kind of security guarantees that are frequently discussed in Brussels and by the Coalition of the Willing, which he dismissed as a largely symbolic initiative without real strategic weight.
Schulenburg was equally critical of the European Commission’s growing tendency to centralize power in areas that traditionally belong to member states. He cited foreign policy and sanctions as examples, arguing that these are fundamentally national competencies rather than supranational ones. In this context, he also criticized von der Leyen’s earlier statements suggesting that Ukraine could receive fast-track EU membership, noting that such promises exceed the Commission president’s authority.
More broadly, Schulenburg argued that the EU’s common foreign policy has failed to deliver meaningful results. Instead of attempting to build an effective supranational diplomatic structure, he suggested that Europe should acknowledge the continued central role of nation-states in international politics. ‘The nation-state is still the only institution capable of protecting people in a globalized world,’ he said.
Schulenburg concluded that Europe must prioritize peace above all else. Establishing a new European security architecture that takes into account both Ukrainian and Russian security concerns will be unavoidable, he argued. ‘Armament and nuclear armament will not solve the problem,’ he said, stressing that negotiations remain the only viable path toward lasting settlements.
‘The European Union was created as a peace project,’ Schulenburg said. ‘Yet today it is neither willing nor capable of bringing peace to the continent.’
Related articles: