Is Europe starting to come to its senses on Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin’s bid to expand Russian influence in Africa appears to be stalling, evidenced by a recent summit in Moscow that drew fewer than twenty leaders from the continent’s fifty-plus sub-Saharan nations. Despite agreements reached during the gathering, including the sale of fighter jets to Ethiopia and the creation of a geological map for Mali, the low attendance signaled a decline in Moscow’s standing. This diplomatic shortfall coincides with a parallel shift in European strategy regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Nordic leaders are pushing for direct negotiations despite resistance from other bloc members. The reduced turnout in Moscow reflects growing resentment toward Russia across the continent. Public sentiment has soured due to Moscow’s recruitment of African nationals to fight in the Ukraine conflict and the failure of defense partnerships in the Sahel region. These factors have eroded the Kremlin’s regional credibility just as China and the United States continue to vie for power in the area. In Europe, the debate over ending the war has fractured along new lines. On October 20, a press conference in Oslo featured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. While Zelensky maintained that Russia lacks a genuine desire for peace, citing attacks on civilians, Stubb described the summit as the result of substantive progress made under the radar. Støre emphasized that Europe must remain at the table to secure lasting peace. Following these remarks, Stubb and Støre engaged in unofficial calls with Putin to attempt de-escalation, arguing that neighboring countries bear direct responsibility for regional security outcomes. These diplomatic moves contrast sharply with statements from EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, who asserted that Europe must pressure the aggressor rather than force the victim to surrender. However, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide has recently challenged the binary view of total victory or capitulation. Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Eide argued that because Europeans are funding the war, they should lead the diplomacy to end it. He suggested a peace agreement could preserve a democratic, independent Ukraine integrated into the EU while retaining eighty percent of its original territory. Stubb has similarly advocated for value-based realism, urging audiences to maintain cooler heads and avoid a war mentality that precludes peace concepts. Both leaders reject the notion that weapons alone ensure peace, noting that neither side possesses the resources for a decisive victory. Current offensive actions have failed to yield breakthroughs, leaving costs rising and gains minimal for all parties involved. Putin faces an overheating economy and rising social anxiety, while land offensives risk heavy losses. Ukraine contends with chronic manpower shortages, leading to intensified forced mobilization and social strain. Blocked at sea and subjected to aerial bombardment, Kyiv also struggles with financial constraints. As these pressures mount, the inability to achieve a decisive military advantage suggests that continuing the current trajectory presents severe challenges for all stakeholders.