Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

Abstract

A small but growing literature has started to analyse the European Union (EU) ‘as an effective peacemaker’. We make a contribution to this field by investigating EU mediation effectiveness in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The focus is on perceptions of effectiveness. Based on information from semi-structured interviews, we compare EU self-images with Ukrainian evaluations of EU mediation efforts. How effective is the EU, including its Member States, deemed to be? What factors are believed to lie behind perceived (in)effectiveness? We concentrate on four such factors, derived from the mediator literature: perceived (im)partiality, coherence and credibility and, finally, evaluations of the EU’s mediation strategies. Both internal and external views singled out EU member states as the most effective actors in current mediation. The role of EU was seen in ambivalent terms by both sides. All the four determinants of mediation effectiveness are discussed in our material, but differ considerably in the degree of attention given to each of them. While (im)partiality is not a factor that is linked to effectiveness in any straightforward way, EU incoherence is associated with inconsistent and weak policies, notably in the Ukraine material.

Politicization of EU Development Policy: The Role of EU External Perceptions (Case of Ukraine)

“…The relatively low levels of perceived salience and polarization of EU development aid in Ukraine are arguably surprising as perceptions of EU–Ukraine relations in the areas of security and association policy seem to be characterized by a very high degree of salience and considerable polarization (Elgström et al ., 2018; Chaban et al ., 2019b), further demonstrated in an analysis of the EU's conflict management role in the Russia–Ukraine conflict (Chaban et al ., 2019a). Future studies may explore if the new leadership of Ukraine and new challenges to the EU by Covid‐19 earmark any shifts in such perceptions.…”

Ego versus Alter: Internal and External Perceptions of the EU's Role in Global Environmental Negotiations

“…The main exception to this trend is the study by Chaban et al . (2019) who compare the perceptions by EU (ego) and Ukrainian (alter) actors of the EU's role in the Ukrainian crisis. Relying on interviews, they show that the ego and alter assessments differ at least to some extent.…”

“…Second, diplomatic activities are the actions employed by the EU to promote its positions in international environmental negotiations and to reach out to third parties (Bäckstrand and Elgström, 2013; Groen, 2018; Petri and Biedenkopf, 2020). Third, influence is the extent to which the EU has an impact on the outcome of international negotiations (Groen et al ., 2012; Van Schaik, 2013; Chaban et al ., 2019). The three dimensions of the EU's role thus reflect the process of international negotiations: the EU starts negotiations with a specific preference on how ambitious the outcome of the international negotiations should be; then, it engages in diplomatic activities during the negotiations; and lastly, it may have some influence on the outcome of the negotiations.…”

“…The question on the concrete differences between ego and alter perceptions has remained largely unaddressedwhich is precisely the gap this paper aims to address. The main exception to this trend is the study by Chaban et al (2019) who compare the perceptions by EU (ego) and Ukrainian (alter) actors of the EU's role in the Ukrainian crisis. Relying on interviews, they show that the ego and alter assessments differ at least to some extent.…”

“…Primarily focusing on European assessments, the literature might provide an incomplete picture of the EU and the evaluation of the EU's role risks to be partial or even incorrect (Keuleers et al ., 2016). Whereas there are some notable exceptions (Elgström, 2007; Kilian and Elgström, 2010; Parker et al ., 2017), there is currently a ‘lack of research that compares self‐ and external images of the EU’ (Chaban et al ., 2019). This paper aims to fill that gap by shedding light on the extent to which the self‐perception of the EU as a global environmental actor corresponds with the perceptions of non‐EU countries.…”