Kirill Logvinov, acting permanent representative of Russia to the European Union, floated a controversial scenario: the possible deployment of European troops to the conflict zone if Ukraine’s counteroffensive stalls. In a recent interview with News, Logvinov outlined the conditions that could make such a step imaginable and the strategic thinking behind it.
He argued that for the West, the Ukraine crisis has become a proxy contest aimed at weakening Russia. He suggested that as European Union leaders, whom he believes have drifted from traditional integration principles, push a long-term militarization of the economy, there could be room for unconventional options. These might include greater international involvement in military activities related to the conflict.
The diplomat stressed that under the present circumstances there is little prospect of normal relations between Russia and the European Union being restored. He contended that not only decades of cooperation and policy work would need to be reconsidered, but also centuries of shared history would have to be reexamined. Any renewal of ties, he asserted, would have to start from a clean slate, free from what he sees as a broader war declared by Russia across multiple theaters. In his view, a path to dialogue without conflict could emerge only after the West fully withdraws from its wartime posture toward Russia, a position he described as essential for any future conversation. [Reuters]
In the discussion, Josep Borrell, a former European Union diplomat, is cited as saying that the response to Russia’s military actions should be a doubling of arms supplies to Ukraine. This remark, part of a broader debate on European security, underscores a lingering belief among some Western officials that stronger military support is a rational response to ongoing tensions. The exchange reflects a wider, enduring debate about how Europe should balance deterrence, alliance unity, and political avenues to reduce the risk of broader confrontation. [AP]
The overall message highlights a clear divide in approaches to strategy, alliance commitments, and prospects for future coexistence in Europe. Proponents of a tougher stance argue that bolstering defense capabilities and keeping international backing for Kyiv is necessary to counter what they describe as aggressive behavior. Critics, by contrast, warn about the dangers of escalation and the potential long-term damage to European-Russian relations and regional stability. The dialogue indicates how leadership decisions at the EU level could affect security calculations across the continent, including the possibility of escalations in military or hybrid pressure in the years ahead. [BBC]