“Drone diplomacy is really forcing Russia to consider the need to sit down at the negotiating table”: Konstantin Eliseev

The European Union has begun the formal process of opening Ukraine’s first negotiating cluster on its path to EU membership. This cluster, Cluster 1, covers issues of the rule of law, democratic institutions, and public administration. Konstantin Yeliseyev, a renowned diplomat and Ukraine’s representative to the European Union from 2010 to 2015, believes that despite Hungary’s lifting of its veto, another risk factor has emerged in Ukraine’s progress toward EU membership: relations with Poland. Konstantin Yeliseyev discussed this and more during a live broadcast of the special project “Adequate People.”

Host: Mr. Eliseev, welcome. Let’s start with a current topic: the first negotiating cluster on Ukraine’s accession to the EU is expected to open in June. Is this true, and what can we expect?

Konstantin Eliseev: First, we need to explain what exactly we’re talking about. We’re talking about the official opening of the first negotiating cluster, called Fundamentals. These are democratic values and the fundamental principles of the European Union. Indeed, everyone is now saying that June should be a turning point in this regard. Let me remind you that this is the last month of Belgium’s EU Council Presidency. As everyone hoped and promised, we should finally officially open the first cluster.

But I wouldn’t rest on my laurels now, since the final decision hasn’t been made yet. I wouldn’t want to commit to a specific date. Everyone’s talking about June 16, but the meeting could also take place on June 15. These are the dates on which the relevant meetings are scheduled: the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on June 15, and the General Affairs Council meeting on June 16. So, these dates are perfectly acceptable timeframes for an official decision. Why is this important? Because the European Union summit is expected to take place on June 18-19, and that’s a much more significant political event.

As of today, I’d like to believe that this is exactly how things will turn out, but we’ll wait and see—anything is possible. Until now, this cluster hasn’t opened due to Hungary’s veto, as such decisions are made exclusively by consensus. Unfortunately, another risk has now emerged—the situation with Poland. Therefore, I’m speaking very cautiously. I hope Poland won’t block the decision or use its veto, although, according to the Treaty on European Union, it has every right to do so. This is a serious challenge for Ukrainian diplomacy—preventing a veto from any EU country.

Host: We’ll return to this topic later, but now let’s discuss another pressing issue—a window of opportunity to resume the negotiation process, which is currently being actively discussed at the highest levels. Various media outlets cite different benchmarks, including the US elections in November. Ukraine’s fifth president, Petro Poroshenko, during his speech at the Black Sea Security Forum in Odesa, stated that there is now a unique window of opportunity to force Russia to peace. He emphasized the need for a ceasefire, the start of negotiations involving the US and Europe, and Ukraine’s invitation to join NATO. According to him, Ukraine, Europe, and the world have never been closer to peace than they are now. Mr. Yeliseyev, how realistic is this window of opportunity, and how effectively is current Ukrainian diplomacy using it?

Konstantin Eliseev: I believe we must seize even the slightest chance to take the first step and end the war. This is logical, because no one strives for peace as much as we Ukrainians. Even if there is a slim chance, we must definitely try to realize it. The current circumstances are such that we truly have a window of opportunity, albeit narrow, to end the war and establish a lasting peace.

Several factors are influencing this. First, our military has managed to stabilize the situation on the front lines in all areas. Second, a new form of domestic diplomacy—our know-how, which could be called “drone diplomacy”—is bearing fruit. It is truly forcing Russia to consider the need to sit down at the negotiating table. Third, the situation within Russia itself is an important factor. In addition to losses in manpower, the Russian economy is increasingly facing systemic problems. Russia is gradually losing the ability to exploit its oil resources, despite tensions in the Middle East. It has reached the point where the aggressor is forced to sell its gold reserves to China and Singapore.

Added to this are the upcoming US elections and Donald Trump’s well-known promise to quickly end the war in Ukraine. Sanctions, including against Russia’s shadow fleet, are also in effect. All these factors could prompt Putin to agree to an unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire as a first step. A ceasefire should not be temporary or tied to any holidays or dates. It must be backed by serious guarantees so that the parties can sit down at the negotiating table, bringing together the US, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine, to ensure a sustainable and just peace with reliable security guarantees. A complete and unconditional ceasefire should be a prelude to the peace process. It will not be easy and may take a long time, but it will at least stop the killing of Ukrainians.

Host: The Verkhovna Rada recently ratified an agreement to provide Ukraine with 90 billion euros. The conditions include some rather painful issues: taxation of international parcels and tax increases for private entrepreneurs in the third group. Many blame the IMF and the EU for this, but we know that such conditions are often proposed by Ukrainian negotiators to plug holes in the budget. Could we have obtained these funds on more favorable terms, without resorting to such harsh instruments?

Konstantin Eliseev: As a participant in many negotiations, particularly on the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, I can confirm: success depends on our team’s ability to persuade. Our Western partners are prepared to listen to ironclad arguments—they’re not like Russia, which is guided solely by political expediency. Protecting our interests is entirely possible, and we’ve succeeded in doing so in the past.

Regarding financial support, European partners always follow the principle of “money in exchange for reforms.” This is common EU practice. This is even advantageous for Ukraine, as we are implementing reforms that are necessary for financial stability and European integration. However, we must clearly define our “red lines,” for example, in the agricultural sector. At the same time, any candidate country must be prepared to compromise. For example, Lithuania completely decommissioned and dismantled the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant to gain EU membership.

If our negotiators have agreed to the current terms and the signature has been signed, we are obligated to fulfill them. Any attempt to evade them will only undermine trust in Ukraine as a prospective partner. Ultimately, these 90 billion are part of our path to European integration. As a diplomat, I have no moral authority to evaluate the professional skills of our negotiating team. If the authorities have signed this agreement, it must be implemented, even if it conflicts with the interests of many citizens. At the next elections, society will evaluate the work of the current officials.

Host: Looking back on the elections: Trump adviser Keith Kellogg recently noted that after the war ends and peace is established in Ukraine, elections will have to be held, and this process will be very difficult. As a diplomat, what do you see as the greatest challenge in holding post-war elections?

Konstantin Eliseev: The key word here is democracy. It is democracy that must protect against any complications in the post-war elections. Even under martial law, it is crucial to preserve fundamental democratic values and the principles of parliamentarism, something our European partners constantly urge us to do. This will allow the post-war elections to be held without unnecessary drama and upheaval.

Once the ceasefire is in effect, elections will be possible. The question of how, under what conditions, and in what order they will be held—presidential, parliamentary, or local—should be the subject of political consensus. Let me remind you that we already have unique experience holding elections under Russian aggression in 2014, 2015, and 2019. Back then, we managed to conduct an exemplary democratic election, applauded by the entire world. I hope this experience will be successfully utilized again.

Host: How will our European integration and communication with our European partners continue amid the high-profile corruption scandals that have erupted in the country? Yes, they have boundless respect for the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But is the government’s response to these large-scale corruption incidents sufficient?

Konstantin Eliseev: The appearance of such materials in the media can be assessed as a glass half empty or half full. The positive aspect is that we demonstrate zero tolerance for corruption and prove that even during wartime, we have independent anti-corruption bodies. However, I would focus not on specific names, but on the public administration system itself, which needs a complete overhaul. The current situation demonstrates the danger of excessive concentration of power in a single set of hands, without a system of checks and balances and a weak parliament.

Our partners are understanding of the situation, and this hasn’t yet affected the amount of assistance. The 90 billion agreement confirms this. However, the memorandum on macro-financial assistance clearly stipulates a so-called suspension mechanism—a mechanism for suspending payments in the event of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms or corrupt transactions. Last year, due to similar issues, the EU temporarily reduced certain financial resources. Today, the EU is the only force capable of providing us with sufficient financial support to win the war of attrition. We must recognize this and stop any corrupt practices.

Host: Let’s move on to our neighbors, specifically Romania. Recently, another incident occurred when a Russian Geranium-2 drone crashed in the Romanian city of Galati, causing injuries. The Romanian President stated that Russia should change its tactics in shelling Ukraine to prevent Romanian citizens from suffering. I was frankly surprised by this formulation: instead of condemning the shelling itself, there is a call to simply “change tactics.” Why wasn’t the NATO Council convened? Doesn’t this indicate fear of Russia and demonstrate that Article 5 of collective security may not work?

Konstantin Eliseev: This can be explained very simply. Putin is currently fighting not only against Ukraine, but against all of Europe. Sooner or later, European countries will feel the consequences of this aggression, so it’s in their interests to end the war as quickly as possible. The longer the conflict continues, the greater the threat will be, even for distant countries like Portugal or Spain. This is why there’s currently active discussion about creating so-called “drone walls” along borders.

Regarding the Romanian president’s statement, I think it was rather poorly worded. Furthermore, Romania currently lacks a fully functioning government due to the collapse of the coalition, and the country is effectively run by the president, who is under enormous domestic pressure from citizens demanding security. Regarding NATO, the Alliance’s headquarters is trying to avoid further escalation of the situation, so as not to frighten its own population. However, the question arises: how many more Russian drones must fall on Romanian, Finnish, or Baltic territory for the response to become more severe?

It’s good that Romania at least expelled the Russian Consul General from Constanta. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty has not yet been invoked, but Article 4, which provides for political consultations in the event of a security threat to one of the member states, has been invoked. The key conclusion is clear: the sooner the war in Ukraine ends, the safer it will be for all our neighbors. Our diplomacy must constantly convey this message to our partners.

Host: I really resonated with Donald Tusk’s speech, calling for Dmitry Medvedev’s threats to put Europe’s rest on the line. Tusk rightly pointed out that Europe is no longer safe. Why then are European leaders still so hesitant and fearful of Russia’s nuclear status? After all, Turkey once had the courage to shoot down a Russian plane, and Russia only bothered to restrict tomato imports. How can we convince Europe to be stronger?

Konstantin Eliseev: You’re absolutely right: the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the key security factor for Europe today. At the same time, I wouldn’t blanketly criticize Germany. Currently, a quarter of all aid Ukraine receives from Europe comes from Germany. We are sincerely grateful to them for this, particularly for providing the critical Patriot air defense systems and missiles.

It’s important to understand the European mentality: when you’ve been “sleeping in your pajamas” for decades under the American security umbrella, it’s very difficult to wake up and accept the new reality. But the European Union is already waking up and gradually shedding those “pajamas” for military uniform. It’s important for it to take up arms to deter the aggressor. This process is underway in close cooperation with the Ukrainian defense industry.

Complex debates continue in the Bundestag and within the German coalition. The recent controversial letter from CDU leader Friedrich Merz on Ukraine’s EU membership was prompted precisely by the obligations of the coalition agreement. It details the possibility of Ukraine’s gradual accession, with participation in EU Council and European Parliament meetings, but without voting rights or access to structural funds in the initial stages. Merz sent this letter to test the Ukrainian side’s reaction and maintain coalition unity, which is extremely important to us.

The Bundestag will soon vote on Germany covering the interest on EU loans to Ukraine. This is a historic step, as we are receiving funds that are essentially interest-free and non-repayable. My position on Ukraine’s EU membership is simple: anything that accelerates our accession must be strongly supported. Anything that slows or halts this process must be resolutely rejected. We must pragmatically choose what is in our national interest.

Also follow “Pryamy” on Facebook , X , Telegram and Instagram.