The prospects of holding a broader meeting on the Cyprus problem would depend on two parallel diplomatic efforts, involving discussions under United Nations auspices and initiatives by the European Union, President Nikos Christodoulides said on Tuesday.
Speaking after his meeting with Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhurman, Christodoulides said the outcome would depend on talks concerning the substance and methodology of negotiations during the upcoming visit of the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy Maria Angela Holguin, as well as the results of ongoing EU diplomatic contacts.
Christodoulides said an important meeting involving the EU was taking place on Tuesday but declined to confirm whether he was referring to a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and European Council President Antonio Costa.
“I do not want to say anything before the EU makes an announcement,” he said, adding that Nicosia expected to be informed of the outcome later in the day.
Describing his meeting with Erhurman as “a good meeting”, Christodoulides said most of the discussion had focused on substantive issues and methodology.
“There were many questions and clarifications from both sides,” he said, adding that these discussions would continue during Holguin’s visit, which begins on October 29.
The visit will include separate meetings with the two leaders and a trilateral meeting scheduled for November 9.
On confidence-building measures, Christodoulides said he was still awaiting responses from Erhurman to several proposals submitted by the Greek Cypriot side.
Of the 19 proposals he had previously put forward, approximately six or seven remained unanswered, while others had been rejected.
“Just because something has been rejected does not mean we do not bring it back to the table,” he said, pointing to the Technical Committee on Youth, which he said had taken two years to gain acceptance.
On the issue of crossing points, the president said he had submitted two alternative proposals, one of which had been rejected, while the other remained under consideration.
He said Erhurman had requested further clarification and was expected to respond at their next meeting.
He stressed that opening a crossing point at Pyroi-Athienou remained a fundamental requirement.
The president also welcomed progress on initiatives concerning the environment and cultural heritage, which were included in the joint UN statement issued after Tuesday’s meeting.
He said Erhurman had responded positively to a proposal for the exchange of cultural artefacts between the two communities, allowing them to proceed with the exchange of relevant lists.
Joint environmental initiatives will also be pursued through the Technical Committee on the Environment.
Asked about his upcoming meetings with Holguin, Christodoulides said he was prepared to meet her as often as necessary.
“If daily meetings are needed, that is my priority,” he said, adding that he would also be willing to attend an earlier joint meeting if the UN envoy considered it necessary.
He confirmed that he expected to meet Erhurman again before Holguin’s arrival, possibly next Tuesday.
Asked whether he would request the UN provide a document outlining previous convergences before negotiations resume, Christodoulides declined to elaborate.
“On these matters, I prefer to act first and inform you afterwards,” he said.
Before Holguin’s arrival, Christodoulides and Erhurman intend to meet with the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage, the Technical Committee on Youth and the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Consultative Body.
President Nikos Christodoulides and Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhurman agreed to meet again next week following what the United Nations described as a constructive meeting on Tuesday in the UN Protected Area in Nicosia.
According to the UN, the two leaders continued discussions on confidence-building measures, methodology and the substance of the Cyprus problem.
They welcomed the upcoming arrival of UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy Maria Angela Holguin, who is expected in Cyprus on October 29.
Both leaders are due to hold separate meetings with Holguin ahead of a trilateral meeting scheduled for November 9.
The two also agreed to move forward with initiatives concerning the environment and the exchange of cultural artefacts.
Before Holguin’s arrival, Christodoulides and Erhurman intend to meet with the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage, the Technical Committee on Youth and the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Consultative Body.
The leaders agreed to continue their discussions at another meeting next week.
The latest American diplomatic initiative on Ukraine comes at a particularly difficult moment in relations between Washington and Kyiv. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is taking part in talks in Oslo on Tuesday, 20 October, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, before an anticipated visit to Moscow for discussions with Vladimir Putin.
The Norwegian government has confirmed that the meetings will include Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will participate remotely. The meeting was requested by Zelenskyy, with Norway and Finland providing the diplomatic setting.
Yet the significance of the Oslo discussions lies less in the gathering itself than in the political circumstances surrounding it. Washington is seeking an agreement with Moscow while simultaneously becoming more confrontational towards Kyiv. Recent American decisions affecting military assistance, intelligence cooperation and Russian energy exports have introduced serious doubts about how the administration intends to use its considerable negotiating leverage.
The immediate difficulty concerns the growing discrepancy between American diplomatic assurances and the practical conditions under which Ukraine is expected to negotiate.
Zelenskyy has accused Washington of delaying military deliveries, restricting intelligence sharing and limiting access to the Starshield satellite communications system. The Ukrainian president suggested that these developments reflected a political decision to reduce support at a particularly sensitive stage of the war. American officials have disputed allegations that assistance is being deliberately restricted.
Among the disputed deliveries are Patriot air-defence interceptors purchased by European NATO members through the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List programme. Zelenskyy has indicated that shipments remain subject to authorisation by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.
These are operational matters with immediate consequences. Ukraine relies on American intelligence, communications infrastructure and air-defence equipment to counter Russian missile attacks. Any interruption affects Kyiv’s military calculations, irrespective of whether Washington formally acknowledges a change in policy.
The political message is equally consequential. Trump has publicly questioned Zelenskyy’s willingness to negotiate and suggested that Ukraine might need somebody else to conduct talks with Russia. Such remarks place additional pressure on the Ukrainian leadership while leaving Moscow’s territorial demands largely untouched.
The central weakness in the American diplomatic approach is the assumption that renewed engagement with Putin will necessarily produce meaningful Russian concessions.
Moscow has repeatedly treated negotiations as an opportunity to pursue political objectives that its armed forces have not achieved on the battlefield. Russian demands concerning Ukrainian territory and restrictions on Kyiv’s future security arrangements remain incompatible with Ukraine’s sovereignty.
An agreement reached under these conditions could suspend hostilities without resolving the underlying conflict. Russia would retain the capacity to rebuild its forces, while Ukraine could find its military options constrained by commitments made in exchange for an uncertain ceasefire.
The Trump administration’s recent economic dealings with Moscow further complicate the negotiations. Washington’s arrangements concerning Russian diesel have attracted criticism from Kyiv and European governments, particularly because Russian energy revenues remain an important source of financing for the war.
Trump has also pressed Ukraine to curtail attacks on Russian oil infrastructure, reflecting American concerns about fuel prices. For Moscow, relief from attacks on refineries would preserve economically important facilities that Ukraine has demonstrated an increasing ability to reach.
Any arrangement limiting such operations without corresponding Russian concessions would alter the military and economic balance in Moscow’s favour.
The broader American proposals reportedly include possible post-war economic cooperation with Russia. Their implications extend beyond Ukraine: commercial normalisation could offer the Kremlin substantial benefits before the conditions for a stable European security settlement have been established.
European participation in the Oslo process is therefore more substantial than a question of diplomatic representation.
Britain, France, Germany and Poland, alongside the European Union and NATO, are expected to be involved in the wider discussions. European governments would almost certainly bear much of the financial and military responsibility for implementing any settlement, including Ukraine’s reconstruction and long-term security.
They also possess considerable economic leverage through sanctions, financial restrictions and decisions concerning frozen Russian assets. Those instruments would form part of any serious negotiation over Moscow’s future relations with Europe.
However, European influence remains constrained by continuing dependence on American military technology and equipment. The controversy surrounding Patriot deliveries illustrates the problem: European governments can finance weapons for Ukraine without necessarily controlling when those weapons are released.
As EU Today previously examined, Washington’s negotiations with Moscow have consequences for European security that cannot be separated from the future of Ukraine.
European governments consequently face a difficult calculation. They wish to preserve American involvement, but excessive accommodation of Washington’s demands could leave them financing security arrangements over which they exercise limited control.
Norway and Finland have helped bring the Ukrainian and American delegations together at a moment when their relationship is deteriorating. Whether that produces progress will depend partly on Moscow’s response, but also on whether Washington is prepared to maintain the military and economic pressure necessary to make Russian concessions possible.
Witkoff’s anticipated journey from Oslo to Moscow will offer an early indication of the administration’s priorities. Putin will be assessing the terms Washington is prepared to offer, while Kyiv remains concerned about restrictions affecting equipment it needs to defend its cities.
For the Ukrainian leadership, the danger is that negotiations intended to end Russia’s invasion could become a process in which the country resisting that invasion is asked to make the most immediate concessions.
Login