Macron calls Lukashenko as US withdraws from Ukraine ceasefire talks
French President Emmanuel Macron took the unusual step of calling Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko on May 24, which is now housing Russian nuclear weapons.
The French President warned Lukashenko against involving Belarus in Russia’s war against Ukraine during their first phone call since 2022, Swiss outlet Le Temps reported on May 24, citing sources close to Macron.
Tensions on the Ukraine-Belarus border have been rising recently. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on May 15 that he had instructed the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to prepare a response plan for threats from Belarus. Zelenskiy specifically mentioned strengthening the Chernihiv-Kyiv sector.
That followed Lukashenko's statement on May 12 that he planned a limited mobilization of specific military units to “prepare for possible combat operations,” but also claimed Belarus was “committed to peace.”
Macron's call also came a day after Russia reportedly fired two Oreshnik IRCM cruise missiles at Kyiv, which have nuclear capability and can hit most European capitals. Last year, Russia moved several of these missiles to Belarus in an escalatory role. Lukashenko boasted that he has operational control over the missiles, but the Kremlin said it remains in full control of the missiles and the ability to launch them.
The call comes in the context of improved relations between Belarus and the Western allies. Lukashenko has recently been flirting with the White House and agreed to a string of political prisoner releases as the Belarus strong man goes back to his old ways of trying to play the West off against the Kremlin on which he is now entirely dependent.
"A phone call between the presidents of Belarus and France, Alexander Lukashenko and Emmanuel Macron, has taken place today at the initiative of the French side," the Belarusian foreign ministry said in a statement. Macron and Lukashenko discussed "regional issues and Belarus's relations with the EU and France in particular".
In December, Macron suggested that the Europeans should resume direct talks with Putin – a call that has been since joined by half a dozen other EU leaders. European leaders have become increasingly frustrated at being excluded from peace talks led by the US administration under Donald Trump, who said last week that the US would no longer participate in the negotiations.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that US efforts to bring the Ukraine conflict to a halt have stalled and no talks are currently taking place.
"But we hope that will change because that war can only end with a negotiated settlement. It will not end with a military victory by one side or the other, at least from a traditional standpoint of how military victories are defined," he noted.
The secretary of state added that there appears to be no one else in the world currently capable of facilitating a settlement between Ukraine and Russia. However, he noted that "if someone else would like to handle it, they should".
The failure of the US efforts to broker a ceasefire has knocked the ball into Europe’s court and Marcon’s outreach to Lukashenko is a play to bring Lukashenko in on the EU’s side as he continues to have some leverage over Putin, at least as a possible mediator – a role Lukashenko would love to take up.
Europe is currently searching for a European leader to lead a negotiating team to talk to the Kremlin, which also appears to have given up on a US-brokered breakthrough. On May 9, Putin suggested that the Kremlin would be willing to negotiate with Europe, if a suitable interlocutor can be found.
As part of his new dovish stance towards the Ukraine conflict, Lukashenko said that Minsk would not join the war in Ukraine and is ready to meet with President Zelenskyy.
"I am ready to meet with him anywhere - in Ukraine, in Belarus - and discuss the problems of Belarusian-Ukrainian relations," Lukashenko said. Previously, Minsk was the venue for two rounds of peace talks between president Vladimir Putin and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, which produced the Minsk I and II accords under the presidency of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko after a proxy war between Ukraine and Russia broke out in the Donbas in 2014.
Lukashenko’s comments were a response to the Ukrainian president's statement last week that Russia was trying to further drag Minsk into the war and was considering plans for operations in the south and north of Belarus. The accusation is not without merit after Lukashenko gave Russia permission to launch an assault on Kyiv from Belarusian territory in February 2022 at the very start of the war that ultimately ended in disaster.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb has put himself forward to represent the EU in possible ceasefire talks with Russia now the US has fully withdrawn from the process, but immediately ruled out any talks starting unless Russia agreed to a full ceasefire in Ukraine.
This position is a return to the hard line position Ukraine and its European allies adopted at the London conference last April, and was immediately rejected by the Kremlin, which has rejected any talk to ceasefire and insisted on a longer more difficult process of reaching a lasting peace deal, which presumably includes territorial concessions from Ukraine in the Donbas.
Stubb said that he doesn’t rule out that Europe may engage in dialogue with Russia already this year, but if he sticks to an insistence on a ceasefire as a prelude to any talks, the Kremlin is almost certain to refuse.
"I can imagine that Europe will engage in dialogue with Russia this or that way this year. However, it is impossible to say right now when this happens," Stubb said, answering questions from the audience of the Yle broadcaster on May 24.
When asked whether he can act as a mediator, he said that if he is asked, "it will probably be difficult to say ‘no’."
Stubb’s name has come up as one of several candidates for a European mediator at potential talks with Moscow. Other candidates include former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and Stubb’s predecessor as Finnish president Sauli Niinistö. Angela Merkel’s name was also put forward, but she has already said no and recommended someone active in service. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier is also considered to be a possible candidate.
The discussion on finding a European mediator began after president Vladimir Putin said in a press conference following the Victory Day parade that the end of the war in Ukraine was “close” and suggested he was open to talking to an EU representative, suggesting someone like his old friend and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is widely seen as a Russian stodge after he went to work for Gazprom after he left office. However, Putin also said that the Kremlin would not deal with anyone that has been “spitting insults at us.” That immediately ruled out one obvious candidate – the head of the European Commission foreign policy Kaja Kallas, who has been extremely critical of Russia.
It seems that the Kremlin will have the same objections to Stubb: commenting on his candidature, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that the Finnish leader “tops the list of Western elites’ representatives who use the language of hatred when speaking about Russia.”
Stubb is a proponent of continuing the war and says Ukraine is in its “best military position of the war thanks to ‘math’” — one Ukrainian soldier lost for every eight Russians.
Western analysts have pointed to Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) gains on the battlefield and an apparent slowing of Russian advances since the start of this year. But these are still counted in a few hundred kilometres at best and the Armed Force of Russia (AFR) remains firmly in control of around 20% of Ukrainian territory.
Moreover, the relative disparity in the size of the population of the two countries means Russia can sustain considerably higher casualty losses than Ukraine for longer.
“I seriously doubt both this approach and the numbers; and the strategy is far from winning or even realistic. Russia has 143mn people. Ukraine’s population has collapsed dramatically — from over 40mn pre-war to roughly 25mn or even lower today, with more than 10mn refugees abroad, heavy civilian deaths, and the country bleeding out demographically in a brutal war of attrition,” former Ukrainian presidential press spokesperson Iulia Mendel said in a post. “Raw kill ratios (especially obviously dubious) ignore the hard truth of sustainability and the vastly different sizes of our nations.”
Latvia: Standing with Ukraine
12:43 min From the show
Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Latvia has been providing massive support to war-torn Ukraine. Like Estonia and Lithuania, this small Baltic state is among the European countries hosting the highest number of Ukrainian refugees relative to its population. Our reporters Valentine Patry and Hugo Laridon went to Latvia to meet some of those who are helping Ukrainians.
Valentine PATRY
Hugo Laridon
For years, Ukraine and Moldova have vied for the dubious honour of being the poorest country in Europe. The contest was close enough to be largely academic and they regularly traded last and second to last places for years. That symmetry is over. The average Moldovan today earns approximately 1.5 times more in dollar terms than the average Ukrainian. Ukraine is now officially the poorest country in Europe.
As recently as 2021, the two neighbours had nearly identical income levels — two small, post-Soviet economies stuck at the bottom of the European table, each struggling with corruption, emigration and the chronic underinvestment that comes with geopolitical limbo. Indeed, in the early years following the Maidan revolution in 2014, an influx of investment lubricated with a dollop of optimism even saw Ukrainian wages grow and start to close the gap with the much richer and more prosperous Russia.
Since then economic chaos and political instability has now given way to full scale war, the destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of millions of working-age citizens. Private investment has collapsed and hollowed out an economy that, before February 2022, had shown genuine signs of modernisation.
Moldova's relative rise is not a story of transformation. Chisinau remains poor by any European measure, and its own challenges — Russian energy dependence, a shrinking population, the unresolved frozen conflict in Transnistria — have not disappeared. Indeed, Moldova's economic situation is so dire that President Maria Sandu has even suggested reunifying with Romania, with which Moldova has close historical ties.
The demographic dimension compounds the economic one. Ukraine has lost millions of people to emigration since the invasion — many of them young, educated and unlikely to return quickly regardless of how the war ends. Ukraine has the worst demographics in the world with mortality three-times higher than fertility. And the drain on labour caused by the forced conscription of any man of military age that has not fled the country has led to a slow strangulation of industry. The tax base shrinks, the labour force thins, and the fiscal dependence on foreign aid for fully half the budget has already sent debt to GDP to over 100% and rising.
For European policymakers watching from Brussels, the income reversal is a data point that sharpens an already difficult question: what does post-war Ukrainian recovery actually look like, at what cost, and who will pay for it? The €90bn support package the EU has mobilised addresses the immediate financing gap. But two thirds of that money is earmarked for defence spending and the rest is for wages. Nothing significant is being spent on reconstruction; what is being spent is rebuilding energy assets destroyed by Russian missiles last winter.
Millions of Ukrainian refugees are likely to remain in the European Union for years – and possibly permanently – even if the war with Russia ends, according to a new report by Dutch think-tank Clingendael Institute that warns European governments must prepare for long-term integration rather than assume a rapid mass return home.
The report, "Between War and Return: Scenarios for the Future of Ukraine and Its Refugees", outlines four possible futures for Ukraine between 2026 and 2030 and analyses how each could reshape migration flows across Europe.
“The report concludes that in all scenarios a large number of Ukrainian refugees – including those in continued need of protection or in need of an alternative status after TPD ends – will likely remain in the EU for many years, if not permanently,” the study said, referring to the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD).
“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 not only led to the largest and most destructive war in Europe since World War II, but also led to the continent’s biggest displacement crisis since that time,” the report said. More than 5.9mn Ukrainian refugees were recorded outside the country by January 2026, according to figures cited in the report.
The Clingendael study was published as uncertainty grows over the future trajectory of the war and the prospects for refugee return. US President Donald Trump has pushed diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the conflict, but the report noted that “Donald Trump’s fervent diplomatic offensive” had produced “few tangible results”.
The authors said policymakers needed to prepare for multiple possible futures rather than rely on assumptions about a quick end to the conflict or a swift repatriation of refugees.
“As such, this report is an exercise in strategic foresight, which is a systematic analysis of plausible futures,” the paper said.
The study presents four scenarios ranging from continued war with Ukrainian territorial gains to a Russian military advance, and from fragile ceasefires to a more stable post-war recovery backed by Western security guarantees.
In the first scenario, Ukraine manages to regain parts of the east and south while the war drags on. Economic recovery remains weak, but the improved security situation encourages many displaced Ukrainians to return.
Under this outcome, the number of Ukrainians requiring protection in the EU would fall from around 4.3mn to between 2.4mn and 2.7mn.
The second scenario paints a far darker picture. Russian forces achieve major territorial advances, recapturing the entire Donbas region and pushing closer to major Ukrainian cities including Kharkiv, Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia. The report said this would trigger a new wave of mass migration into Europe.
“This scenario leads to large new displacements of Ukrainians, with 7.1 to 11.7mn more Ukrainians fleeing to the EU,” the study said. Under that scenario, the number of Ukrainians needing protection inside the EU could rise to between 9.3mn and 13.9mn people.
The third scenario envisages a ceasefire without a meaningful peace settlement or major economic recovery. Fighting decreases substantially, but Russia continues hybrid pressure on Ukraine while political conditions inside the country deteriorate. As a result, many refugees would remain reluctant to return despite the reduction in violence.
“This scenario leads to limited further displacement,” the study said, while warning that “the disappointing economic and political situation in Ukraine leads to limited return migration”.
Around 2.4mn Ukrainians would still require protection in the EU under this outcome, while many others would shift from temporary protection to permanent or longer-term residency arrangements.
The fourth and most optimistic scenario assumes a stable ceasefire combined with strong Western security guarantees and deep institutional reform inside Ukraine. “In this scenario, there is no new displacement of Ukrainians nor forced emigration out of Ukraine,” the report said.
The study estimates that around 2.5mn Ukrainians currently under temporary protection in the EU would return home in that case. However, the report said large numbers would still stay in Europe permanently.
“Even in the most positive scenario, in which the war ends with a robust ceasefire and Ukraine achieves a substantial economic recovery … no more than 2.5mn BTPs are expected to return, while more than a million Ukrainians whose TPD status has expired are expected to remain in the EU,” the study said.
The report stressed that ending active fighting alone would not be enough to trigger mass refugee returns. “A third key conclusion of this report is that an end to the active fighting through a ceasefire is an insufficient condition for Ukrainian refugees to return in large numbers,” the authors wrote.
Instead, return decisions would depend heavily on the durability of any ceasefire, Ukraine’s security environment, economic opportunities and political trajectory after the war.
“Once the war ends, the prospects for refugee return will also be determined by the nature of the ceasefire and the robustness of Ukraine’s resulting security, the level of economic recovery that will take place, and the political developments in post-war Ukraine,” the report said.
The study warned that Ukraine’s demographic challenges were becoming increasingly severe after years of war, migration and population decline.
Before Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s population was estimated at around 41mn. By the end of 2025, only about 31mn people remained in government-controlled areas, according to figures cited in the report.
The authors said many of the war’s demographic effects were likely irreversible. “The war against Russia is transforming Ukraine’s economy, geography, demographics, politics, and society,” the report said.
“Key features of this change are the country’s demographic decline, forced international migration, the demographic and economic shift from the east to the west of the country, the decline of traditional industries and employment models … and the rise of new industries.”
The report also highlighted the risk that some of the most vulnerable Ukrainians could become trapped in dangerous frontline areas because they lack the means to leave.
“Contrary to what one might expect, those Ukrainians who are hit the hardest by adverse and deteriorating conditions … are typically the least mobile,” the study said.
Demographic forecasts cited in the report suggest Ukraine’s population could shrink to between 24mn and 35mn by 2050 depending on how the war develops and how much migration continues.
The study cited Ukrainian demographer Ella Libanova as saying Ukraine would require hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually just to stabilise its population.
Against that backdrop, the authors argued that EU governments needed to shift towards long-term planning for Ukrainian refugees already living in Europe.
“This means that EU member states, including the Netherlands, need to start planning to facilitate the longer stay of Ukrainian refugees who cannot return in the near future,” the report said.
The paper also warned that if legal protections expire without replacement arrangements, many refugees could struggle to remain legally inside the EU.
“The end of the TPD (without similar alternatives), for example, would lead many Ukrainian refugees to apply for alternative statuses in their respective host countries,” the study said.
“If they are unable to do so, the refugees in question would more likely move out of the EU and towards other host countries … or resort to illegality rather than return en masse to Ukraine.”
The report concluded that European governments needed clearer long-term strategies both for integration and for legal residency pathways.
“In order to avoid such a turn towards illegality,” the authors wrote, “the EU member states should develop specific plans to allow Ukrainians who are unable to return to remain in their host countries for a longer period of time.”
No comments:
Post a Comment