Subscribe
The month of June could represent a crucial phase in the evolution of the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, potentially opening up new scenarios for dialogue and negotiation. The geopolitical dynamics and diplomatic initiatives that have emerged in recent weeks suggest, albeit cautiously, the possibility of an opening towards forms of negotiation between the parties involved. In this context, the intervention of third-party actors with international mediation functions is emerging as an element of growing importance, as these mediators could play a fundamental role in facilitating a credible and sustainable negotiation process. However, the path towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict still appears to be full of obstacles and strongly influenced by political, military and economic factors that make reaching an agreement a complex and long-term challenge.
WHAT HAS CHANGED? GEOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND DIPLOMATIC RECALIBRATION
To understand the recent changes in the scenario of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as the repercussions on the strategies of the international actors involved, it is necessary to systematically examine the political and diplomatic events of recent weeks. A first turning point was represented by the meetings between the so-called “willing countries”. These developments were followed by an event of global importance, the death of Pope Francis and the solemn funeral in the Vatican, which also constituted an unprecedented context for informal diplomacy. Previously, the dramatic meeting at the White House between the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, had sparked wide debate. The meeting initially raised fears about a possible US strategic disengagement from the Ukrainian crisis, a hypothesis that would have led to a weakening of both Kiev’s position and the cohesion of the European front. However, in the following weeks, there was an improvement in the relationship between Trump and Kiev, certainly attributed to the new economic dynamics linked to the signing of an agreement on rare earths. In any case, the symbolic image that most struck public opinion and international observers was that of the two leaders, Trump and Zelensky, engaged in a private dialogue during the Pope’s funeral: a scene that symbolized the rapprochement between the USA and Ukraine. This renewed axis reactivated the prospect of a negotiation, which in the following days seemed to be even favoured by Turkish mediation. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who maintained an ambiguous position throughout the conflict, welcomed Moscow’s proposal for a preliminary negotiation in Istanbul. Turkey’s position is proving useful for the Kremlin not only in a diplomatic sense, but also to contain US influence in the region, especially in light of the marginal role played to date by the White House special envoy, Steve Witkoff. However, despite the expectations fuelled by Kiev and Trump himself (busy in the Middle East but willing to travel to Turkey if Putin had confirmed his presence), the long-awaited direct summit between Putin and Zelensky has not yet materialized. To date, no formal agreement has been reached on either a truce or a temporary ceasefire. The only tangible result that has emerged from these developments is an agreement regarding a prisoner exchange, happened in the last few days, despite the absence of a more structured political framework.
TOWARDS A POTENTIAL MEDIATION
In the context of the most recent developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a further significant step was represented by a direct contact between the leaders of the two main global powers: a long telephone conversation, lasting about two hours, between the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. According to journalistic sources, no substantial news has emerged regarding a concrete advancement of the peace negotiations. However, a possible softening of the US position towards Moscow was observed, after weeks of increasing rigidity. Several international observers hypothesize that Trump was evaluating a strategy of gradual disengagement, fearing that the negotiations could evolve into a politically burdensome and potentially unpopular process of pacification and reconstruction. It is precisely in this context, marked by uncertainties and timid signs of openness, that the mediation proposal put forward by the Holy See is placed. The new pontiff, Leo XIV, has in fact placed the theme of peace (described as “disarmed and disarming”) at the center of his inaugural message, offering an ethical and spiritual reference capable of relaunching a platform for multilateral dialogue as an alternative to the logic of power. The Holy See, strong in its historical neutrality and moral authority, could prove to be a decisive player in building a path of trust between the parties, promoting a climate of progressive reconciliation supported by the international community.
RUMORS ON THE POSSIBLE SUMMIT IN JUNE
The prospect of an official mediation promoted by the Holy See has recently been at the center of international attention following some rumors spread by the Wall Street Journal. According to the American newspaper, the negotiating table is not only in an advanced stage of preparation, but actually already scheduled for mid-June. These anticipations, if confirmed, would indicate a significant acceleration in the diplomatic dynamics relating to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. An element of particular importance concerns the possible participation, in this preliminary phase, of an official delegation from the United States. Such involvement would be strategically relevant, since it would signal a desire to reaffirm the US geopolitical centrality in the area, despite the wavering and ambiguous attitude maintained so far towards the crisis by President Donald Trump. In this context, Washington’s support for the mediation process could not only strengthen the international profile of the Holy See as an impartial actor, but also help reposition the United States as a key interlocutor in the future structure of the region, thus recalibrating the balance of power between the parties involved in the conflict. In this geopolitical context, the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, seems to play an increasingly central role in contemporary international dynamics. The Prime Minister has maintained a constant dialogue with the main global partners and, according to various journalistic reconstructions, has informally assumed the role of privileged intermediary with the Holy See. The double conversation, which took place on Tuesday 20 May with Pope Leo XIV and with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, was emblematic. This diplomatic dynamism attracted the attention of the Wall Street Journal, which underlined how Italy, thanks to the mediation exercised by Meloni, seems to regain a leading role in the complex international chessboard. Some political analyses, in fact, describe the leader of Fratelli d’Italia as a strategic link between the Euro-Atlantic West, the Holy See and Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation. This intermediate position, also strengthened by the international recognition and authority acquired in recent months, could give Italy a growing influence in the processes of multilateral dialogue and in any negotiations aimed at stabilizing the ongoing conflict. Another possibility of mediation (after Macron’s proposal on Geneva seems to have been frozen by Moscow) concerns a second round of negotiations in Istanbul. In this sense, Moscow’s participation could be more certain, given the climate that Putin expects to find in Turkey. From what we understand, documents and proposals are being collected between the parties in conflict that should serve precisely for the construction of the summit. Despite these possibilities on the table, the conflict has returned to being hotter than ever these days. Even the position of the United States and President Donald Trump seems to be on the path to change. In fact, on May 26, the tycoon apostrophized the Russian leader speaking of a “Putin who must have gone mad”. Trump’s statement came after a series of violent attacks by Russia directed at Ukrainian territory, which caused several civilian casualties. This situation could make – even if there are no indications in this sense – the US lean towards new measures and economic retaliation against the Kremlin, all in view of a new negotiation.
UPCOMING DEADLINES FOR SUMMER
The possibility that at least a partial agreement could be reached by June (in the form of a temporary ceasefire or, in more optimistic hypotheses, a real truce) would constitute a milestone of exceptional importance in the context of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This possibility, however, clashes with multiple critical issues. First, the intrinsic complexity of starting an authentic and productive negotiation process, made particularly difficult by the currently irreconcilable positions of the parties involved. Second, the imminent arrival of the summer season introduces further elements of pressure and urgency. Historically, the summer months lend themselves to an intensification of military operations, due to more favourable weather conditions. In this context, there is the fear that the Russian Federation could launch a new strategic offensive, aimed at conquering additional portions of territory to use as negotiating leverage in a possible negotiating table. If this scenario were to materialize, it is plausible that any attempt at mediation would be postponed until late autumn, when the arrival of rains and the approach of winter would make it logistically more difficult to continue large-scale war operations. This would lead to a further prolongation of hostilities and a corresponding hardening of positions, compromising the remaining opportunities for a diplomatic solution in the short term. Furthermore, this postponement risks increasing the pressure on the civilian populations involved, worsening the already critical situation and widening the gap between security needs and the demands for peace promoted by the international community.