Berlin, FRG (Weltexpress). The Ukraine policy of the Brussels EU eunuchs is failing in the face of reality. In a conversation with the Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen on 25 October 2026, the former top UN diplomat, Michael von der Schulenburg, painted a bleak picture for Europe.
A Parliament in war mode
The European Parliament discusses peace, but, in the view of MEP Michael von der Schulenburg, it is primarily talking about the war in Ukraine. Europe’s leadership has manoeuvred itself into a dead end with its Ukraine policy, from which it can scarcely find a way out without admitting its own mistakes, says the former UN diplomat in the YouTube interview with Prof. Diesen.
The Parliament is completely out of touch with reality, says von der Schulenburg, in essence. During recent debates on support for Ukraine, MEPs have made demands which, in his view, could lead to war in Europe if implemented. There was, by contrast, hardly any mention of diplomacy.
His criticism is scathing. Central to Schulenburg’s argument is the question of why European governments do not regularly review their war aims and negotiating options in the light of the actual situation in Ukraine.
The price of refusing dialogue
According to Schulenburg’s account, Europe has not only largely severed its diplomatic channels with Moscow, but has also lost the ability to formulate a common negotiating position. “We have no negotiating position, we have no chief negotiator, we never speak to the Russians,” he laments. The US could increasingly expand its own relations with Moscow and leave the Europeans to deal with the consequences of their policies on their own.
The irony would be bitter: a Union that likes to see itself as a geopolitical power would be reliant on Washington’s mediation regarding the most important security issue facing its continent. As soon as Washington sets other priorities, Brussels would be left with the realisation that moral resolve cannot replace a diplomatic channel for negotiation.
Schulenburg links this diplomatic paralysis to a fundamental critique of the Western narrative of the war. In his view, negotiations on a neutral Ukraine would inevitably raise the question of why Russia’s security interests and NATO enlargement had not been seriously negotiated by the West at an earlier stage. For, he argues, NATO expansion triggered the war, and Russia – after many fruitless attempts to discuss its own security needs with the Europeans – finally put an end to NATO expansion by force of arms on 24 February 2022.
When one’s own lies become a political prison
Schulenburg sees this as the real reason for the nervousness amongst the European leadership elite. Should a peace agreement ultimately provide for Ukrainian neutrality, governments would have to explain to their voters why such a solution had not been reached earlier. After all, such a diplomatic solution had already been initialled by both sides and was on the table during the Ukrainian-Russian negotiations in Istanbul in the spring of 2022.
As a reminder: the West, represented by the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, had at the time dissuaded Zelenskyy from opting for the peaceful, diplomatic solution, arguing that he would otherwise lose the support of the entire West. In return, he promised Zelenskyy that the great and powerful NATO would stand behind him and that Ukraine would win the war against Russia with ease.
Von der Schulenburg argues that, at the time, the West effectively forced Zelenskyy to continue the war, stating: “We lied to the Ukrainians, and we lied to our own people.”
This is a serious political accusation that strikes at a sensitive nerve among the warmongers in Western governments, who for years have proclaimed with absolute certainty that Russia is on its knees and Ukraine will win. The more absolute the earlier rhetoric, the more politically painful the subsequent correction will be for the ruling politicians, von der Schulenburg points out.
In this context, Professor Diesen explicitly spoke of “panic” and “despair” within the EU. Von der Schulenburg, for his part, anticipates “enormous psychological problems” for the political elites should they be forced to revise their previous statements. The fear of admitting their mistakes could thus itself become an obstacle to peace negotiations.
Tens of billions for Ukraine, whilst the political base crumbles
Von der Schulenburg refers to new support plans for Ukraine totalling around 70 billion euros. At the same time, social problems and criticism of high spending on Ukraine are on the rise in Germany. For the MEP, this reveals a political contradiction: whilst EU governments are constantly discussing new financial commitments, support at home is dwindling. He points to the rise of the AfD, the weakness of traditional parties and the domestic political difficulties facing several European governments.
His prognosis is that European solidarity is crumbling. For the crucial question, he argues, is this: what chance of success does a policy have that demands far-reaching sacrifices from the population without providing a credible explanation for its professed goals?
A major geopolitical power without a common course
Von der Schulenburg is particularly scathing when describing the EU’s international role. For a long time, he argues, Europe saw itself as the third pillar of world politics alongside the US and China. Now, however, Washington, Beijing and Moscow are increasingly discussing the major issues amongst themselves, whilst Brussels remains on the sidelines.
In his view, the European Union lacks a coherent foreign and security policy – neither towards Russia nor towards Iran, Israel, Africa or the US. Nor is a common negotiating line among the 27 Member States conceivable. Any potential negotiator would require room for manoeuvre, which the EU governments would not grant them.
He regards von der Leyen’s efforts to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU as yet another political illusion. He argues that Ukraine is not ready for membership due to war, population loss and economic devastation. Furthermore, agricultural and regional subsidies would trigger enormous conflicts over resource distribution. His categorical prediction was that Ukraine will ‘never’ become a member.
The Ukrainians are paying the highest price
Despite his harsh stance towards Brussels, Schulenburg emphasises that he regards the Ukrainian population as victims of these developments. He describes a traumatised, depopulated country whose state structures are under immense pressure. He warns of a ‘failed state’ and its consequences, which, as experience shows, include the seizure of power by uncontrollable, heavily armed and lawless militias.
The missed talks in Istanbul in 2022, mentioned above, also play a central role in his argument. At that time, an early agreement would have been possible. Schulenburg holds Western governments in particular responsible for the fact that this opportunity was not seized. His proposal is not to divide Ukraine up as spoils between the major powers. Rather, he calls for Europe and Russia to jointly assume responsibility for a viable, sovereign Ukrainian state. In his view, a neutral Ukraine with trade links to both the EU and the BRICS states, and good relations with Russia, could become a bridge between East and West, rather than remaining a front line.
The end of self-deception
Schulenburg expects that Europe will ultimately have to negotiate with Russia after all – albeit on significantly less favourable terms than before. “We will be talking to Russia on our knees,” he puts it dramatically. And, in his view, with every passing day, the European and Ukrainian negotiating positions are deteriorating.
The real admission of failure would not be a compromise in itself. Diplomacy is, after all, precisely about reconciling conflicting interests. Rather, the admission of failure would lie in the fact that, after years of maximalist promises, EU governments are unable to present either an achievable political objective or a credible path to peace. That is why, according to von der Schulenburg, the EU in its current form will not emerge from this crisis unchanged.
