Matt Aldarab

If you want to understand why Washington is conducting Ukraine peace negotiations without the EU at the table, listen to Kaja Kallas's speech today. She insists that Brussels must be involved in negotiations over Europe's future security, while simultaneously claiming that the continent already has an established security architecture based on NATO and the EU, into which Ukraine should simply be integrated. But that's precisely the problem, because Russia, Europe's largest country and biggest nuclear power, is outside those institutions. And as Washington appears increasingly willing to acknowledge, any lasting settlement must address the security relationship between Russia and the rest of Europe. Not to mention that if the existing arrangements were functioning adequately, Europe would hardly be experiencing its biggest war in generations (a child could see this, for crying out loud). Nobody is suggesting that Moscow should have a complete veto over NATO (except maybe some very hardline fringe nationalists). but it's difficult to see how a lasting continental security settlement can be achieved without addressing the relationship between Russia and the blocs members, including the security concerns of both sides. Kallas is perfectly entitled to demand a seat at the negotiating table (as are the British and the Turkish, for that matter), but insisting that the existing architecture is sufficient, without explaining how relations with Russia can be managed within it, doesn't seem a particularly constructive starting point. The whole purpose of the negotiations is to establish a settlement that prevents another war, but simply defending the arrangements under which this one occurred will hardly do that?