SINGAPORE, 28 October 2026 — German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Tuesday that attempts by the United States and Russia to end the war in Ukraine "can never find solutions without Ukraine" and insisted that European countries must also be at the negotiating table, warning against any settlement imposed over the heads of Kyiv and its European partners.
Merz was speaking at the Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, where he described diplomatic efforts to build a negotiating format with Moscow. He said the end of the war depended "only on one person" — a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin — and framed continued backing for Kyiv as a defence of Europe's political order, not merely of one country's borders, Reuters reported on 27 October.
Illustration: A negotiating table set with the flags of Germany, Ukraine, Russia, the United States and European nations, symbolising the inclusive format Merz called for.
What Happened
Merz's central message was about who gets a seat. He said Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European countries should all be at the negotiating table, and he warned against a scenario in which "Russia, perhaps China and the United States of America" end the war without Ukraine. The remark reflects a long-standing European anxiety: that the biggest powers could strike a bargain that trades away Ukrainian territory or security in exchange for a halt to fighting, leaving Kyiv and its neighbours to live with the consequences.
The chancellor was equally direct about continued support. "As long as he (Putin) does not want to end the war, we will support Ukraine," Merz said, according to Reuters. He added that Europe was not just defending Ukraine's territorial integrity but also "the entire political order of the European continent" — language that casts the war as a test of whether borders can be redrawn by force and whether smaller states can count on the rules that have governed Europe since the Second World War.
Merz also revealed that Germany and other European countries were trying to establish a format for speaking with the Russian government, and he singled out Norway and Finland for what he called "a very constructive role" in that effort. The praise matters because it points to a quiet shift already under way: on the same day, the leaders of Finland and Norway called President Putin to urge him to end the war in Ukraine, breaking with a longstanding practice among Western European leaders of shunning direct contact with the Kremlin.
That break with practice is significant. Since the full-scale invasion began, most Western European leaders have avoided direct calls with Putin, arguing that contact without preconditions could be exploited as a propaganda victory or used to divide allies. The Finnish and Norwegian calls suggest that at least some European capitals now judge the value of a direct channel — to press for an end to the fighting and to test whether Moscow is serious about talks — to outweigh those risks.
Background
The war in Ukraine has now shaped European politics for years, and the debate over how it ends has grown as sharp as the debate over how to fight it. Ukraine insists that any settlement must respect its sovereignty and include credible security guarantees, so that a ceasefire does not simply become a pause before a new attack. Russia, for its part, has demanded concessions that Kyiv and its partners have repeatedly rejected. The United States, under changing administrations, has at various points pursued direct engagement with Moscow, raising European fears of being sidelined in decisions about their own continent's security.
Germany sits at the centre of that tension. As Europe's largest economy and one of Ukraine's biggest military and financial backers, Berlin has both leverage and exposure: it funds much of the support for Kyiv, hosts large numbers of Ukrainian refugees, and would bear much of the cost of any European security arrangement that follows a settlement. Merz, who has positioned himself as a firm supporter of Ukraine, has repeatedly argued that European security cannot be outsourced to deals struck elsewhere.
The Nordic dimension adds another layer. Finland shares a long border with Russia and joined NATO in 2023, while Norway, also a NATO member, borders Russia in the far north and is a major energy supplier to Europe. Both countries combine a hard-headed view of Russian power with a tradition of pragmatic diplomacy, and both have direct channels and regional knowledge that larger European states sometimes lack. Their willingness to pick up the phone to the Kremlin — and Merz's public praise for it — suggests they may be acting as bridge-builders, testing the ground for a broader European format rather than freelancing on their own.
The timing is also telling: the diplomacy Merz described is unfolding while the war continues to grind on, with infrastructure that hundreds of thousands of people rely on daily still coming under attack.
Illustration: The Singapore skyline at dusk, where Chancellor Merz set out his case for an inclusive negotiating format.
Why It Matters
Negotiating formats sound technical, but they often decide outcomes before substantive talks begin. Who sits at the table determines whose interests are treated as essential and whose are treated as negotiable. A format limited to Washington and Moscow would, in Merz's warning, risk producing a deal that Ukraine could not accept or that European states would not enforce. A format that includes Kyiv and Europe from the start is slower and messier, but any agreement it produces is more likely to hold, because the parties who must live with it helped to write it.
Merz's framing of the war as a defence of Europe's political order also matters for domestic politics across the continent. Support for Ukraine costs money and, in some countries, political capital, especially as energy prices, inflation and other pressures weigh on voters. By tying Ukraine's fate to the rules that protect every European state — above all, that borders cannot be changed by force — Merz is making an argument designed to outlast news cycles: this is not charity to a distant neighbour, but self-defence of a system on which European prosperity and security depend.
The Nordic calls add a third dimension. If direct contact with Moscow becomes normalised among European leaders, it could open a channel for de-escalation, prisoner exchanges, or eventually ceasefire talks. But it also carries risks that critics will be quick to point out: that Moscow could pocket the legitimacy of renewed contact without changing its war aims, or that different European capitals could send conflicting messages. How Finland and Norway report their calls — and whether other leaders follow — will be watched closely in Kyiv, Washington and Moscow alike.
What Happens Next
Several questions now hang over the diplomacy Merz described. First, whether the European format he mentioned takes concrete shape: who convenes it, which capitals join, and whether Washington supports it or pursues a parallel track with Moscow. Second, how Moscow responds to the Nordic outreach — whether the calls produce any follow-up, or are dismissed as pressure to be ignored. Third, what Kyiv itself says about the shape of talks, since no format can succeed without Ukrainian consent.
Observers will also watch for the next public statements from the leaders involved. Merz's Singapore speech was a statement of principle, not a peace plan, and principles still need to be translated into proposals on territory, security guarantees and the sequencing of any ceasefire. Until those details emerge, his intervention is best read as a marker laid down early: Europe, in Berlin's view, will not accept a settlement made without it, and Ukraine will not be asked to accept one made without Ukraine.
Illustration: A stylised map of Europe with a dove and olive branch, symbolising the search for a negotiated end to the war.
Sponsored: explore today's featured sponsored offers
FAQ
What did Friedrich Merz say in Singapore?
Speaking at the Yusof Ishak Institute on 27 October 2026, Merz said US-Russian attempts to end the Ukraine war "can never find solutions without Ukraine" and insisted European countries must also be at the negotiating table.
Why did he warn about a deal made without Ukraine?
Merz warned against a scenario in which Russia, China and the United States settle the war without Ukraine, arguing that such a bargain could trade away Ukrainian and European interests and would be unlikely to produce a lasting peace.
What did Finland and Norway do?
The leaders of Finland and Norway called Russian President Vladimir Putin on the same day to urge him to end the war, breaking with a longstanding practice among Western European leaders of avoiding direct contact with the Kremlin.
Why does Merz call support for Ukraine a defence of Europe's political order?
He argues Europe is defending not only Ukraine's territorial integrity but the wider rules of the continent — above all that borders cannot be redrawn by force — on which the security of all European states depends.
What happens next in the diplomacy?
Attention now turns to whether a European negotiating format takes shape, how Moscow responds to the Nordic calls, what Kyiv says about the shape of any talks, and whether detailed proposals on territory and security guarantees emerge.
Sources
- Reuters, "Germany's Merz: Russia, US cannot settle Ukraine war without Kyiv, Europe", 27 October 2026 — https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/germanys-merz-russia-us-cannot-settle-ukraine-war-without-kyiv-europe-2026-10-27/
Comments
Post a Comment