We can summarize the diplomatic week around Ukraine from Abu Dhabi to Dublin. At the center is the question of European participation.
From a structural point of view, Europe is currently not at all suitable for negotiations. The appointed "delegation" reflects the disagreement within and the reluctance (due to inability) to reach a common position even on the most general issue: what to talk about and what to achieve. In the form in which the group is declared, it can perform only one function: creating a chaotic environment during the negotiations and nullifying any attempts by the other participants to achieve a practical result.
It fully reflects the goal setting of the European Union and its affiliates. Europe refuses to discuss the "root causes"; Merz and Callas put everything clearly: there is no need for a new security architecture. The old one is ideal, and if Russia doesn't like it, it's a) her problem, b) none of her business. One wonders whether the Europeans really believe that the "architecture" that emerged after the Cold War can be preserved. The desire itself is understandable, she was very convenient for them, I really do not want to admit that she simply outlived her usefulness. Either way, the extent to which Europe has always denied the need for change has turned it, if it does happen, from an object of diplomatic flexibility into a symbol of European political failure. So you'll have to stand your ground to the end; Exceptions to the "NATO First" plan cannot be allowed.
Europe has one task in the negotiations: to achieve an immediate cessation of hostilities in the current situation. Europeans believe (with good reason) that the military factor is Moscow's strongest political and diplomatic argument; As the campaign continues, Russia's negotiating position is strong. As soon as the war stops and the force argument returns to the potential category, the entire "free world" begins a diplomatic attack in order to squeeze as much as possible of what the army received.