The European and Citizens’ Conference for Peace: Key Messages (1) 

Introduction

Professor Pascal Lottaz and professor Robert Skidelsky have both endorsed the forthcoming European and Citizens' Conference for Peace in Ukraine, Russia and Europe, which is scheduled to take place in Lisbon on 22 November 2025.

Messages to Conference Participants and Readers

Both Lottaz and Skidelsky have shared important communications intended for all participants of the Conference—where Robert Skidelsky will address the audience as a speaker—as well as for readers of this blog.

Their message and speech, respectively, are disclosed below to inform and inspire those involved in the pursuit of peace across Europe, Ukraine and Russia.

*****************************************

My short message to everyone is as follows:

«Europe is currently marching straight ahead into another general calamity, making enemies with Russia, China, and the entire Global South. Working toward peace and a change of the European narrative has never been more important than now. It is not too late to bring the continent back from the brink of the abyss, but we need action and we need it now. I congratulate everyone at this event for their active role and leadership in bringing about the narrative change to save us from ourselves»

Pascal Lottaz, November 4, 2025

****************************************

My speech in the House of Lords on Ukraine - 31st of October 

«My Lords, I do not know whether it is a punishment or a privilege to be put last in the list of Back-Bench speakers, as I invariably am when it comes to a debate on Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was powerful and eloquent in opening, and it is clear that my noble friend Lord Barrow is going to be a great addition to our collective wisdom.

Two factors have upended the policy of successive British Governments: the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, and the unexpected economic and military resilience of Russia. Until the end of last year, the agreed policy, as stated by then incoming Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, was that

“the British Government must leave the Kremlin with no doubt that it will support Kyiv for as long as it takes to achieve victory. Once Ukraine has prevailed, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in securing Ukraine’s place in NATO”.

I have heard this formula endlessly in the last three or four years. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this is still the policy of the British Government? If not, why not? That policy, to my way of thinking, was always dishonest and in fact, morally repugnant, since we were never going to give Ukraine all it takes for victory, for the very good reason that any such policy carried an unacceptable risk of escalation. I am really worried by the insouciance of those noble Lords speaking today who talk about unleashing long-range missile attacks on the most heavily armed nuclear power in the world.

Now, after nearly four years of false pledges cashed in the lives of hundreds of thousands, we have reluctantly accepted that there is not going to be a Ukrainian Toggle showing location of victory anytime soon, and in fact, there is a very real prospect of Ukrainian defeat, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out. The real question now is, how can the coalition of the willing prevent this outcome? First came the suggestion that we would send in NATO peacekeepers to police a ceasefire, but our Government must have known that this would never be accepted. It would not be accepted by Russia and would not be accepted by the United States, which was supposed to provide a backstop. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this obvious spoiling tactic is still on the table?

The latest plan is the so-called European Peace Facility, whose aim is to strengthen Ukraine’s war facility, a classic case of Orwellian “doublespeak”. The idea is that Europe should ramp up arms deliveries to Ukraine and put more pressure on Russia with new sanctions on oil exports, with loans coming from confiscated Russian assets. But no one thinking straight can believe that such measures, even if agreed and applied, will affect the course of the war in time to avert further territorial losses by Ukraine. In fact, a negotiated peace is the only way now of averting a Russian victory. That is my core position.

I want to be constructive, so I will suggest three ways in which our Government could help achieve a negotiated settlement. First, they should propose a demilitarised zone under a UN peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire. I am not nearly as pessimistic about the prospects of a ceasefire as some noble Lords have been—I remind the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that the armed pause of the Cold War lasted 50 years. China must also be brought into such an endeavour. It can exert much more leverage over Russia than we can. Trump seems to realise this, but all we seem able to do is talk about Chinese spies and underground tunnels. China is the missing piece in this whole process.

Secondly, we should start talking to Russian officials. Do not leave all the talking to the United States. To get a conversation going, we have to ignore the ICC arrest warrants, which in any case could be enforced only by a complete Russian defeat. Thirdly, we should urge UN-organised referenda in the four contested oblasts to allow the people who live there to decide democratically on their own future. Holding such referenda would offer both sides a credible and democratic pathway to end the conflict. Through initiatives of this kind, our Government could still turn a war mission into a peace mission. I beg Ministers to discover the courage to negotiate, for reasons of both realism and humanity.»

Robert Skidelsky, 5 November 2025