Russian ⁠President Vladimir ⁠Putin has suggested that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder could coordinate talks with the European Union to secure a ⁠peace deal in Ukraine – a proposal met with scepticism by EU officials.

European Council President Antonio Costa said recently he believed there was “potential” for ⁠the EU to negotiate with Russia and to discuss the future of Europe’s security architecture.

Asked on Saturday whom he would like to see restarting talks with Europe, Putin said he would “personally” prefer Schroeder, who led Germany from 1998 to 2005 and has remained close to the Kremlin leader since leaving office.

A day later, the Russian leader said the ⁠four-year-old war may be “coming to an end”, adding that he was ready to hold direct talks with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Moscow or a neutral country.

Speaking after Saturday’s celebrations for Victory Day, which marks Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 at the end of World War II, Putin added he would be willing to meet Zelenskyy only once the terms of a peace agreement had already been settled.

Russia had announced a unilateral two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark Victory Day, while Zelenskyy countered it with his own proposed pause in fighting starting earlier, on the night of May 5-6.

As part of a broader Washington-led push for ⁠peace, United States President Donald Trump on Friday announced a three-day pause in the conflict, but both sides have since accused the other of breaking it.

As US-backed peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow stall, here is a look at who Schroeder is and whether he could be a trustworthy mediator.

Who is Gerhard Schroeder?

The 82-year-old leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) served as Germany’s chancellor from 1998 to 2005, focusing his political goals on European integration, reducing unemployment, liberalising German citizenship laws, curbing nuclear power and rebuilding the economy.

Disagreements over the Iraq war caused a serious rift in German-US relations in 2003, when Germany sided with France and Russia in opposing military intervention in the country over claims that the then-Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was producing weapons of mass destruction.

After leaving office in 2005, Schroeder ⁠almost immediately took a job as chairman of a controversial German-Russian ⁠consortium building a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. He held key roles in Russian energy projects, including work on the Nord Stream gas pipelines and a seat on the board of Russian oil firm Rosneft, which he gave up in 2022.

While he quit that role, the former chancellor has remained close to Putin, standing apart from most Western leaders since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and facing heavy ⁠criticism in Germany.

His failure to publicly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cost him several privileges normally granted to former chancellors, including receiving a state-funded office, making him a controversial figure at home.

What is his relationship with Putin?

Schroeder referred to Putin as “a flawless democrat” in 2004, declaring himself “thoroughly convinced that the Russian president wants to transform Russia into a democracy and that he is doing so out of a deeply held conviction”.

The then-German chancellor had little to say about Russian attempts to influence the elections in Ukraine during those years or about the Kremlin’s attacks on press freedom. On the contrary, under his leadership, Germany deepened its economic ties with Russia, grew trade and increased its dependency on Russian oil and natural gas.

In his book Klare Woerter (Straight Talk), Schroeder spoke about his relationship with the Russian leader, who worked as a KGB spy in the then-East Germany in the 1980s and is fluent in German.

“The most important thing for a friendship is a common language,” Schroeder, who has two adopted children from Russia – Viktoria and Gregor – said. “It makes everything easier.”

Their friendship reportedly continued to blossom over the years. Schroeder criticised moves to impose sanctions and eject Russia from the Group of Eight and even backed a Kremlin argument comparing the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region with NATO’s intervention in Serbia’s Kosovo province in 1999, which he himself helped lead as the German chancellor.

How are the Russia-Ukraine negotiations going?

The US-backed talks have faltered over the latest Russian offensive to seize the remaining parts of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk ⁠region, which Moscow has demanded Kyiv cede before it considers ending its war. Meanwhile, the two sides continue to carry out strikes against each other, with Ukraine making significant inroads in destroying Russian energy infrastructure in recent weeks.

On Sunday, Ukrainian officials said Russian attacks had killed at least three people, and that close to 150 combat engagements had occurred on the front lines in the previous 24 hours, despite the three-day pause in fighting.

“In other words, the Russian army is not observing any silence on the front and is not even particularly trying to,” Zelenskyy said in his evening address, adding that Ukrainian troops were responding and defending their positions.

On Sunday, Russia’s Ministry of Defence accused Ukraine of violating the pause, saying it had ‌downed 57 Ukrainian drones over the past day and “responded in kind” on the battlefield.

Control of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest, has also been a point of contention.

While Putin suggested the war was “coming to an end” on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said peace in Ukraine was a “very long way” away.

On Sunday, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted Kremlin adviser Yury Ushakov saying that US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner would visit Moscow “soon enough” to continue talks with Russia.

Are Ukraine and the West likely to trust Schroeder?

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reacted with scepticism to Putin’s proposal. “If we give the right to Russia to appoint a negotiator on our behalf, you know, that would not be very wise,” she told reporters on Monday in advance of foreign ministers’ talks in Brussels.

“Gerhard Schroeder has been a high-level lobbyist for Russian state-owned companies. So it’s clear why Putin wants him to be the person so that actually, you know, he would be sitting on both sides of the table,” she added.

Germany dismissed Putin’s suggestion on Sunday. The Reuters news agency quoted a German official as saying the offer was not credible because Russia had not changed any of its conditions, stressing that any talks with the EU would need to be closely ‌coordinated ‌with member states and Ukraine.

The official, who ⁠spoke on condition ⁠of anonymity, said Putin had made a series of bogus offers aimed at dividing the Western alliance.

I can’t remember a time in my childhood when I didn’t hear Shireen Abu Akleh’s voice. She was one of the few constants in our ever-shifting landscape, an icon that anchored the Palestinian cause firmly in the Arab conscience.

She started reporting on the most important events in Palestine even before I was born. She documented the second Intifada and the battle for Jenin in 2002. In 2005, she became the first Arab journalist to gain access to the Ashqelon prison to interview Palestinian prisoners held there for years.

I still vividly recall listening to Shireen during the 2014 war on Gaza. I was just 12 years old, but I was watching the news regularly. I was waiting for Shireen in front of the TV at the top of every hour, eager to hear what she would say. Was a ceasefire coming? Did Israel face pressure to stop bombing us?

Even though her voice carried the anguish of what was going on in Gaza, her presence on screen projected hope and resilience.

Shireen was loved and respected by all Palestinians, regardless of their faith or political affiliation. Her courage, moral clarity, and commitment to making the voices of the Palestinian people heard were awe-inspiring.

And so, when on May 11, 2022, news of her killing arrived, it was a devastating shock for us. We soon saw the footage: Shireen lying on the ground, journalist Shatha Hanaysha by her side, and someone behind the camera desperately shouting for an ambulance. Israeli fire hampered rescue efforts, leaving Shireen bleeding on the ground as colleagues were unable to pull her to safety.

The assassination in broad daylight of one of Palestine’s top journalists was not just a shocking crime. It was a harbinger of what was to come.

A year and a half later, Israel began a campaign of systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists in Gaza. As of today, at least 260 media workers have been killed. Israel is now recognised as the “biggest killer of journalists”.

But the assassinations of Shireen and other journalists – like Anas al-Sharif, Fadi al-Wahidi and Mariam Abu Daqqa – have not had the silencing effect Israel had hoped for. The deaths of these heroes did not scare young people into inaction; instead, they motivated them to pick up the camera, the microphone and the pen and continue their work.

I am one of them. Shireen’s assassination changed something deep within me.

At that time, I was a student of English literature, deeply immersed in the power of language and storytelling. However, Shireen’s killing made me shift my focus from literary fiction to the real world.

I realised that while literature preserves our culture, journalism defends our present truth. I didn’t just want to write; I wanted to report, to bear witness. I wanted to be like Shireen.

So I started enrolling in journalism classes within my faculty, trying to develop new skills. The genocide, which made journalism a deadly profession in Gaza, paradoxically launched my journalistic career.

As a resident of Gaza City, I became a firsthand witness to the horrors that rained down on the north. I survived numerous Israeli attacks and was forced to flee with my family multiple times.

I started journaling about the experience of genocide. I often thought of Shireen, wondering what she would have said in the face of the atrocities we faced that seemed beyond human comprehension. I knew she watched us from above and wept. The world seemed deaf and blind to the mass death of Palestinians.

But then I remembered her words: “I chose journalism to be close to the people. It might not be easy to change reality, but at least I was able to bring that voice to the world.” This was her hidden message to young people like me: to be a journalist means to speak up even when the rest of the world does not want to hear.

And so I started writing about the situation in northern Gaza, where I stayed through several sieges and a famine.

Due to the internet blackout, I could not connect to the rest of the world for the longest time. Finally, after the temporary truce in January 2025 was announced, some connectivity was restored. I was able to publish my first piece, titled “Surviving war in north Gaza”, documenting the harrowing, untold details of life and death I had witnessed.

I felt pride and satisfaction that I had finally broken the siege of silence. But for my family, this achievement brought a deep-seated fear. They were afraid that I too could become a target.

Nevertheless, I kept on writing even when Israel was killing journalists every week, even when the world did not move to stop it.

Today, we are supposed to have a “ceasefire”, but the murders of journalists have not ceased. Just last month, Israel killed Mohammed Wishah, who worked as a correspondent for Al Jazeera Mubasher.

Yet, there are still so many of us, young people, who insist on writing, documenting, and screaming through our words in the face of horror and injustice. We have picked up the torch from Shireen, and we carry it forward.

Palestine will not be silenced.