Julian Bulai, leader of the Liberal Democrats in PACE, warns that without a just peace in Ukraine, war will reignite.
On Europe's role in the peaceful resolution of the situation in Ukraine, the risks posed by a potential behind-the-scenes deal between Donald Trump and Putin, and the upcoming elections in Ukraine and Romania – read the interview with the head of the political group (faction) "Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe" (ALDE) in PACE, Romanian deputy Julian Bulai for RBC-Ukraine.
Next week, the ongoing discussions about "searching for a peace plan for Ukraine" may take on a more concrete meaning – evidently, this topic will be actively discussed at the Munich Security Conference, where, among others, Trump's special representative for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, is expected to arrive. Undoubtedly, the American president is currently the one setting all the trends in global politics, particularly concerning Ukraine.
Against this backdrop, both in Kyiv and in European capitals, concerns are growing that Europe may find itself sidelined in the peace process, or even confronted with a "deal" made between Trump and Putin without its involvement.
The head of the ALDE political group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), Romanian parliamentarian and active supporter of Ukraine Julian Bulai, in a conversation with RBC-Ukraine during the winter session of the Assembly, acknowledges that everything will depend on the decisions of major players who have taken on this role regarding the Ukrainian issue. Currently, European leaders will not be able to influence the situation as actively due to their internal problems. However, in this context, Bulai believes that the Council of Europe could play an important role in all processes.
In his conversation with RBC-Ukraine, Bulai not only touched upon "negotiation-related" issues but also addressed other important topics: the possibility of holding elections in Ukraine and the rising popularity of various radical movements throughout Europe, including in Bulai's home country of Romania, where presidential elections are soon to take place, and radicals are gaining high ratings.
– Last week, PACE adopted a resolution "Commitment of Europe to a Just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine." However, in my opinion, it lacked specificity. So, what role do you see for Europe now, in the era of Donald Trump, which has just begun? Of course, I mean the potential peace process.
– The entire idea in the text is peace, and a just peace. It is simply a matter of collectively reminding ourselves of where we are right now, in terms of timing. The legacy of this institution is not important because we expelled Russia in the spring of 2022; it lies in what has already been done, what is ongoing, and what we aspire to achieve.
Firstly, it is a register of losses. This is an institution that has insisted on this. The tribunal for the crimes committed in Ukraine, the Council of Europe has a very strong position on this matter. And also the mechanism for compensations, that is in third place.
With the new reality following the American elections and their doubts regarding the European Union, I believe the role of the Council of Europe is primarily to establish the right narratives regarding the conditions under which peace should be achieved. And a just peace. A just peace means that if a ceasefire occurs tomorrow, it must be on terms acceptable to the Ukrainian people.
And who can promote such an agenda is precisely those who have achieved their set objectives until now. The European Union has committed to provide financial assistance. This is not enough. We do not have financial resources here, but we are establishing narratives, the right narratives.
Therefore, returning to your question, it is a matter of keeping on the agenda the elements of the peace we desire. It must be just.
– This is a repetition of previous statements.
– In terms of content, there is nothing new here (in the resolution – ed.). You are correct. But from the perspective of opportunities, it is very important that we confirm what the conditions for the peace we must achieve should be in the post-American election period.
– Do you see any signs that a lasting peace, or at least a ceasefire, could be achieved in the foreseeable future?
– Well, we do not have any information other than the scenario outlined by President Trump. So it would be arrogant to base our speculations on scenarios other than the publicly available information that he has committed to a ceasefire and negotiations for peace in Ukraine. And now more than 24 hours have passed since his reelection.
– Much more time.
– Therefore, everything depends on the decisions of major players who have taken on this role.
Right now, there may be a role for us, the role of our Secretary General, to be part of the discussions, as he has quite extraordinary experience as a president of a country, and not just any country, but Switzerland, which is the venue for all possible high-level negotiations.
Thus, with this fortunate coincidence of competencies, with the Council of Europe that has so far provided Ukraine with the institution and the right narratives, along with President Trump's commitment to a ceasefire and achieving negotiations, and with Mr. Berse, the newly elected Secretary General, representing European values and interests in this process, we should expect dialogue that will include us in the coming months.
– As you noted, the 24-hour plan is no longer relevant; it may be replaced by a 100-day plan from Special Envoy Kellogg. Do you believe this could actually work? And is it correct to set specific timelines, like 100 days, 200 days, three months, six months, seven and a half months?
– I do not operate with that understanding of the situation because we do not know. It would be very inappropriate speculation. We see that President Trump is currently more focused on domestic issues, such as his administration, as well as America's relations with its neighbors and Latin America.
So we will see when Europe comes into play, when Ukraine appears on his agenda. It would be very wrong for me to speculate.
– Do you have concerns that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin might make some kind of "deal," as Trump often mentions, behind the backs of both Ukraine and Europe?
– As a Romanian, I can say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not something that has been forgotten in Romania. And this precedent shows that we should never exclude any type of dialogue that may occur.
I try not to worry without sufficient grounds, but I would like us not to exclude any scenario over which we may not have control right now.
– Are there any options for Europe – I mean Europe as a whole, referring not to a specific institution but to leading EU countries, Europe as such – to avoid losing its initiative in this process? Because right now, as you said, Donald Trump is the one setting the conditions, and everyone else is merely pondering them.
– Europe finds itself in a very unfortunate situation: the UK is no longer part of the EU, Germany is currently in the midst of an electoral campaign, and the French government is weakened.
Therefore, I am more concerned that European leaders at this moment will not be able to influence the situation strongly. Of course, I would like them to have an impact, I would like them to have the power. The idea of the principle of unanimity in the European Council does not contribute to a more active EU.
This is why I believe the Council of Europe could invite parties to negotiations. Not the OSCE, not the UN. If the European Union is divided, then why not the Council of Europe?
– So who should sit at the negotiating table? Perhaps the Americans, Russians, Ukrainians, probably the Chinese, Europeans?
– I think we are already getting ahead of ourselves with potential scenarios, and this is a treacherous game. I want to say that the Council of Europe should invite 3-4 relevant parties that are related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because we are the home of justice.
And if this happens, then an international arrest warrant should be applied against some war criminals and heads of states. So we cannot say that we are creating a tribunal, and on the other hand, we declare amnesty. This is a challenge, but we will have institutional moral authority because it was not the United Nations or the European Union that insisted on the creation of the tribunal, but the Council of Europe.
Therefore, I believe that this would be a way out of the situation. If we want to discuss issues of peace and justice, the Council of Europe must play a certain role, considering its merits in this matter to date.
– In all the debates about various peace plans, there is often too much talk about Trump's ideas, Ukraine's reaction, Europe's role, but the other key player – Moscow – is overlooked. Without Moscow, there will be no "deal" at all. Do you see any signals of Russia's readiness to end the war in the future?
– I rather see escalation from the