Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU
| Author | Natalia Chaban,Ole Elgström,Michèle Knodt |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836718823813 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718823813
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(4) 506 –523
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718823813
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Perceptions of EU mediation
and mediation effectiveness:
Comparing perspectives from
Ukraine and the EU
Natalia Chaban, Ole Elgström
and Michèle Knodt
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.
Keywords
Coherence, credibility, EU perceptions, (im)partiality, mediation effectiveness, Russia–Ukraine
conflict
Introduction
The Russia–Ukraine conflict, with its focus on Crimea and eastern Ukraine, created chal-
lenges for European Union (EU) diplomacy. While rapidly assuming a mediator role, the
EU also forms a part of the conflict as it pushes for Ukraine’s rapprochement towards the
Union within the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and its Eastern Partnership
(EaP). Russia, as expected, was opposing this rapprochement (Kanet, 2015: 519). Both
Corresponding author:
Ole Elgström, Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden.
Email: ole.elgstrom@svet.lu.se
823813CAC0010.1177/0010836718823813Cooperation and ConflictChaban et al.
research-article2019
Article
Chaban et al. 507
the EU itself and several Member States, nota bene France and Germany, were active
participants in the different negotiation ‘formats’ that tried to end hostilities and create a
favourable environment for a peace agreement. Apart from mediation activities, the EU
also engaged in coercive diplomacy in the form of economic sanctions against Russia. It
also provided financial and structural aid to Ukraine, exerting conditionality without
offering a prospect of EU membership.
A small but growing literature has started to analyse the EU ‘as an effective peace-
maker’ (Bergmannn and Niemann, 2015; Bergmann et al., 2018). Much of this research
has questioned the effectiveness of the EU, referring to the contested coherence of EU
external action and to an alleged lack of impartiality in many conflicts (Thomas, 2012).
Still, we know very little about the achievements of the EU in the field of international
mediation, not least in terms of its impact. This article makes a small contribution to this
end by investigating EU mediation in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The focus is on per-
ceptions of effectiveness. We compare EU self-images with Ukrainian evaluations of EU
mediation efforts. How effective or ‘successful’ is the EU, including its Member States,
deemed to be? In what ways, and how much, do EU self-images differ from Ukraine
perceptions? What factors are believed to lie behind perceived (in)effectiveness? We
concentrate on four such factors: perceived (im)partiality, coherence and credibility and,
finally, evaluations of the EU’s mediation strategies.
The article proceeds as follows. We start by introducing our theoretical framework,
with an emphasis on potential determinants of mediation effectiveness. After a brief out-
line of the EU’s mediation in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, we turn to a description of our
methodological choices. In the main empirical part, we first scrutinize Ukrainian percep-
tions of the EU’s mediation activities, followed by an analysis of EU self-images and a
comparison between the two images of EU effectiveness. In the Conclusion, we discuss
the role of the perceived determinants of policy effectiveness.
Theoretical perspectives on mediation effectiveness
Determining the effectiveness of mediation is no easy task. Indeed, for some cases of
mediation, there is no clear delineation between ‘success’ and ‘failure’ (Greig and Diehl,
2016: 106) as such assessments depend significantly upon the time horizon of the con-
flict. Effectiveness may be measured objectively (such as formulation of a peace agree-
ment, its quality, etc.) or subjectively. Subjective measures rely on perceptions of goal
attainment. In this article, we only investigate such subjective evaluations, that is, the
EU’s and the Ukrainians’ own assessments of the EU’s effectiveness as a mediator.
Addressing the conflict parties’ subjective views allows us to comprehend their interpre-
tations of an extremely complex situation, where ‘objective’ measurements of success
are highly controversial. Comparing their interpretations helps us understand how differ-
ent definitions of the situation create obstacles to EU–Ukraine co-operation, potentially
impeding conflict resolution.
A review of relevant international mediation research leads us to focus on four factors
that are generally considered to be major determinants of mediation effectiveness. Three
of these refer to mediator characteristics, one to mediator behaviour. In all cases, we are
only interested in actors’ perceptions of these characteristics and actions. Thus, we will
To continue reading
Request your trial