Pope Francis’ efforts to reach a ceasefire in Ukraine have not been successful, nor will they be beyond humanitarian issues. The Vatican’s not very impartial narrative in the eyes of kyiv regarding the war, the impossibility of an immediate ceasefire or the unpopularity of the Catholic Church in the post-Soviet space truncate his ability to mediate.
The Vatican’s diplomatic attempts to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Russia’s war against Ukraine have failed from the start. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, Pope Francis has tried hard to mediate between the two states, turning his attention primarily to pressing humanitarian issues, including facilitating prisoner exchanges. At the end of April, the Pope expressed his willingness to support the Ukrainian authorities in their efforts to repatriate thousands of children deported by the Russians from Ukraine, a crime that led the International Criminal Court to to emit an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Also at the end of April, on his return from Hungary, Pope revealed that a secret diplomacy was being carried out to mediate between the conflicting parties. However, the reactions from both Moscow and kyiv have been one of denial and rejection. A close adviser to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, express that: “President Zelensky has not consented to any such talk on behalf of Ukraine. If conversations are taking place, they are taking place without our knowledge or our blessing.”
Less than two weeks later, President Zelensky arrived in Italy as part of his European tour, with three well-defined objectives in mind: to strengthen the military alliance with Western partners, requesting the supply of new weapons; to secure his support to start negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union; and get their backing for the NATO summit in Vilnius, where kyiv expects concrete steps to bring Ukraine closer to the transatlantic alliance. In this context, the meeting with Pope Francis took place, which served as a purely symbolic act. He provided an opportunity to address any lingering doubts and conclusively put to rest any innuendo or speculation surrounding alleged Vatican diplomacy aimed at achieving an immediate ceasefire in the war.
The official visit began on the morning of May 13, and the Italian media provided live coverage of the official meetings. His narrative followed the events, suggesting that Zelensky’s main motivation for the trip was to engage in Vatican diplomacy and its peace plan. Following the meeting with the Pope, the Ukrainian president took to Twitter and declared: “I asked him [al Papa] to condemn the crimes [de Rusia] in Ukraine. Because there can be no equality between the victim and the aggressor. I also spoke of our peace formula as the only effective method to achieve a just peace. I proposed to join your application.” Later, during the press conference with Italian journalists, Zelensky was even more explicit: “The war is on Ukrainian soil, it is Ukrainian soldiers and civilians who are dying, so any peace proposal must come from Kiev, not from the Vatican, China or anywhere else.”
The next day, Zelensky’s adviser, Mykhailo Podolyak, vented all the frustration Ukraine had accumulated over the past 15 months of war on the Vatican and its war narrative. tweeted directly in Italian, writing: “The Vatican is above all moral. When you call an aggressor by his name. When you harshly and directly condemn mass crimes. When you openly side with a country that is being killed and destroyed without provocation. When you personally defend those who are unconditional victims of Russian aggression. When you call evil, which is Russia, by name. Only then does Holy Justice emerge. Because it is not about “mediation in favor of the aggressor”, but about true peace and true punishment of evil”. Thus, with this accusation of directional and impartial mediation, kyiv has definitively closed the door on the Vatican, preventing it from acting as a mediator in matters related to the belligerent aspect of the war.
The reasons for the failure of Vatican diplomacy even before it began are manifold. Starting with Podolyak’s statements, it could be argued that it is absurd to ask the Pope, as a mediator, to take a position between Russia and Ukraine. After all, a mediator must be impartial. The point, however, is that for kyiv, the Pope is not impartial, rather he is mediating “in favor of the aggressor.” Furthermore, Ukraine does not see the Vatican as a political actor or institution, unlike other possible mediators such as Turkey, China or the United Nations. For them, the role of the Vatican is strictly related to morality. This perspective explains why kyiv does not criticize Turkey and China for their neutral stance in the war, since these countries prioritize their national interests and avoid direct confrontation with the Kremlin.
By contrast, kyiv views the Vatican as a religious institution with limited influence in Ukraine. It should be noted that the most (74%) of Ukrainians identify as Eastern Orthodox, and only 8% are Greek Catholics. In addition, the anti-Catholic propaganda disseminated for years by Orthodox institutions (Russian or under Russian influence) has contributed to the unpopularity of the Vatican not only in Ukraine, but in most of the post-Soviet space.
The Pope’s aversion to mediation is also influenced by his interpretation of the war, in particular his famous comment around “NATO barking at Russia’s door” suggesting that the conflict is a proxy war orchestrated by the United States and provoked by the West. This narrative raises two concerns for Ukrainians. First, it presents the Pope as an anti-Western who opposes NATO and the United States for ideological reasons, which aligns him with the Kremlin. On the contrary, for kyiv, NATO, the United States and the entire Western alliance are crucial strategic partners for its security and survival as a nation-state. Second, the narrative of a “proxy war” is seen as inherently colonialist, as it denies agency to the Ukrainian people, undermining their ability to be active participants in the conflict and in potential negotiations. Instead, it presents Ukraine, and its population of more than 40 million, as a mere pawn in the hands of the so-called great powers.
Another reason for the lack of success of Vatican diplomacy is related to its request for an immediate ceasefire. The Vatican overlooks the fact that President Zelensky, at this point, understandably lacks both the will and the authority to make such a decision, simply because, unlike Putin, he is accountable to public opinion in his country. A recent survey conducted across Ukraine, including the eastern and south-eastern regions (excluding Russian-occupied territories) and published in March 2023, reveals that 97% of Ukrainians believe that it will win the war against Russia, and 74% are confident that Ukraine will retain all territories within its internationally recognized borders established in 1991.
If Zelensky were to negotiate in these circumstances, especially while Ukraine is in a counter-offensive phase and having already achieved success in Bakhmut, which was deemed a losing battle, he would risk inciting another Maidan uprising. It should not be forgotten that Ukraine has a vibrant civil society that has traditionally held its government accountable for its decisions and actions. That is why, since 1991, no Ukrainian president, except Leonid Kuchma, has been re-elected for a second term. Furthermore, Ukraine has witnessed two revolutions, in 2004 and 2014, organized from the bottom up by Ukrainians who felt betrayed in their aspirations for a European future.
In the Ukraine, the current war is perceived as an anti-colonial struggle for physical survival against the Russian invader, for freedom and for Europe. It is precisely because of this military, political and social context that Vatican diplomacy has failed and is unlikely to succeed in the future, except in matters relating to war-related humanitarian issues.
Article translated from English from the website of the International Affair Institute (IAI).
