Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: Denmark offers to hold Ukraine peace talks in July

Diplomacy Watch: Denmark offers to hold Ukraine peace talks in July

The Danish foreign minister said a summit would need buy-in from outside of Europe to succeed.

Analysis | Europe

The Danish foreign minister said Monday that his country would host a peace summit in July if the time is right for talks.

“If Ukraine finds that the time has come to have such a meeting, that would be fantastic,” Lokke Rasmussen said at a European Union event in Brussels. “And then Denmark would obviously like to host the meeting.”

Notably, Rasmussen said that “we need to put some effort into creating a global commitment to organize such a meeting.” This would mean getting support from China, Brazil, and India, all of which have expressed interest in getting Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table.

Rasmussen’s comments mark the first time that an EU and NATO member country has thrown its weight behind the idea of inclusive talks since the early days of the conflict, suggesting a potential shift in how the continent views the path forward in Ukraine.

There is, however, one significant gap: the Danish diplomat expressed doubt that Russia would attend, telling reporters that it is “hard to see” Moscow joining the initiative. Rasmussen did not clarify his reasoning on this point, but one could speculate that he is unsure whether Moscow would be open to the timing and venue of the talks.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a surprise appearance at the Group of 7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, this past weekend, where he pressed leaders to support his “peace formula” and secured U.S. support for providing F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. 

In a joint statement following the summit, the G7 leaders called on China “to press Russia to stop its military aggression, and immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine.”

Zelensky also made a stopover in Saudi Arabia for the Arab League Summit in an attempt to drum up support from Arab leaders, many of whom have chosen to maintain a neutral stance toward the conflict. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba took a simultaneous trip to Africa, highlighting Kyiv’s renewed determination to win hearts and minds across the Global South.

But some of these efforts went more smoothly than others. Zelensky was reportedly set to meet with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a prominent booster of peace talks, at the G7, but the Ukrainian leader appears to have stood Lula up. 

When asked if he was disappointed to have missed the meeting, Zelensky joked that “I think he was disappointed.” The high-profile snub could put Lula’s peace efforts on ice, according to Andre Pagliarini, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and professor at Hampden-Sydney College.

“[R]elations between Brazil and Ukraine are colder now than they were last week,” Pagliarini wrote in RS. “Indeed, one might even conclude that the Brazilian president is now giving up on the prospect of contributing to a formal peace between Russia and Ukraine.”

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has renewed his push to protect the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as Ukraine winds up its counteroffensive, according to the Washington Post. Given that Russia and Ukraine have both balked at the idea of creating a demilitarized zone around the facility, Grossi has reportedly drafted a more modest proposal that would ban certain activities near the plant. The United Nations Security Council is expected to hear Grossi’s pitch at a meeting before the end of this month.

— Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Matteo Zuppi — a prominent Italian cleric — as his peace envoy for the war in Ukraine, according to the Wall Street Journal. Zuppi, who is among the frontrunners to succeed Francis as pope, has a long history of pushing for peace around the world and even became an honorary citizen of Mozambique after a successful effort to end that country’s brutal civil war. The Italian cardinal praised Pope Francis’s approach to the war during a speech on Wednesday. “War is a pandemic,” Zuppi said. “It involves us all.”

— Hungarian President Viktor Orban said Wednesday that, given that NATO will not fight Russia directly, “there is no victory for the poor Ukrainians on the battlefield,” according to Al Jazeera. “The war can be stopped only if the Russians can make an agreement with the U.S.,” Orban continued. “In Europe, we are not happy with that, but it’s the only way out.”

— European leaders are struggling to build support for Ukraine in South America, where many countries have preferred to maintain a neutral stance on the conflict, according to Politico. An unnamed Chilean official told the outlet that the war is “a topic that needs to be solved by the big powers, not something we can do from the end of the world.”

U.S. State Department news:

In a Monday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller addressed allegations that U.S. weapons were used in an attack on the Russian town of Belgorod. “We have made very clear to the Ukrainians that we don’t enable or encourage attacks outside Ukrainians’ borders, but I do think it’s important to take a step back and remind everyone, and remind the world, that, of course, it is Russia that launched this war,” Miller said, adding that “it is up to Ukraine to decide how they want to conduct their military operations.”


Analysis | Europe
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.