Costa's quiet line to Moscow splits the EU, and tests Luxembourg's nerve

When European Union leaders sat down in Brussels on 18 June, their official agenda ran to competitiveness, the bloc's next long-term budget and the war in Ukraine. What actually dominated the room was a single revelation: the man chairing the meeting, European Council President António Costa, had quietly opened a line to the Kremlin — and most of the governments he leads learned of it only after the fact.

The disclosure, first reported by Bloomberg on 17 June and swiftly confirmed by Costa's office, turned a routine summit into a test of who speaks for Europe on Russia. For Luxembourg's Prime Minister Luc Frieden, it also posed a sharper question much closer to home: how far a small, exposed member state should go in backing — or resisting — a top EU official's overture to Moscow.

What Costa actually did

According to Costa's office, the contacts were narrow. His head of cabinet, Pedro Lourtie, held telephone calls with a senior Russian official close to President Vladimir Putin, with the aim of testing whether a communication channel could be opened should peace talks ever become viable. An EU official stressed there had been, in the office's account, only brief diplomatic exchanges.

The President explained that he had asked his office to open a diplomatic channel with Russia. The aim was to be ready, when the right moment comes, to defend the EU's interests. What we are talking about are brief contacts, with no exchange on substance and no negotiations — simply diplomats carrying out diplomatic work.

Costa's defenders cast the move as prudence rather than freelancing. The European Council president, who has chaired the institution since December 2024, has publicly argued that Europe must be ready to step in if US-led mediation stalls. "But, of course, it is possible that moment will come when we will have to replace President Trump's efforts and make our own efforts to achieve just and lasting peace in Ukraine," he said.

A summit rift over coordination

The substance of the contact mattered less than the method. Several leaders complained they had not been consulted before the calls were placed. German government circles described the outreach as uncoordinated, unprofessional and an "affront," noting that capitals were briefed only afterwards. Chancellor Friedrich Merz reminded the table that Costa represents the European Union but is not its mediator. France's Emmanuel Macron voiced displeasure, and Poland, the Baltic states and the Nordic countries lined up against the initiative.

Costa was not without allies. Belgium, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal backed the idea of keeping a door ajar. Slovenia's prime minister said any step that could lead to a ceasefire should be welcomed; Portugal's leader called the move positive and necessary. The split was less about whether to talk to Moscow eventually than about who decides, and when.

Luxembourg's careful line

Frieden did not join the harshest critics, nor did he hand Costa a blank cheque. His emphasis fell squarely on process and unity — that Europe cannot rely on Washington alone to broker an end to the war, and that it risks being sidelined if it improvises.

But before we talk, we need to identify what our exact position in such potential negotiations is, and then of course also make sure that there is the appropriate representation of Europe to lead these talks.

Asked whether Europe would ultimately have to deal directly with Russia, Frieden was blunt about the destination if not the route: "at some point in time, yes, we need to sit at the table." The formulation captured Luxembourg's balancing act — a country that has consistently described Russia as a permanent threat to European security, yet one too small to be sidelined if and when negotiations begin.

That tension is not new in Luxembourg's foreign policy. Earlier in 2026, Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Xavier Bettel had warned that the EU was "absent" from the diplomatic track and needed direct engagement with Putin. Frieden's summit intervention reads as the more cautious sequel: yes to a European seat at the table, but only behind a position the 27 have agreed together.

Why coordination is the real fight

For all the friction, leaders still managed a show of unity where it counted. The summit agreed to roll over economic sanctions on Russia, this time extending them for a full 12 months rather than the customary six — a signal that the pressure track remains intact even as a back channel is tested.

The episode nonetheless exposed an unresolved question at the heart of EU foreign policy: when outreach to an adversary is this sensitive, does the bloc move as one, or does its most senior official move first and explain later? Costa has argued that being ready is itself a form of strength. His critics counter that readiness without coordination hands Moscow exactly what it wants — a glimpse of European disunity.

For Luxembourg, the lesson of the Brussels summit was less about Costa's phone calls than about the machinery around them. A small state's influence depends on the EU acting collectively; the moment a single figure opens a channel alone, smaller capitals risk being presented with decisions rather than asked for them. Frieden's insistence on a common position first was, in that sense, a defence of Luxembourg's own weight — phrased not as a rebuke, but as a reminder.