Who is the next Metternich? The Future of Peace Talks in 2025

Feb 06, 2025

In 1814/15 European leaders met in Vienna to draw up a post Napoleonic order that would prevent further continental wars for almost a century. Their success was due in no small part to Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian diplomat who understood that peace required not idealism but a pragmatic balance of power. Can a Metternich-style settlement be reached in Ukraine in 2025? Geopolitically Correct analyses the historical parallels, the strategic realities of today, and what this means for governments and businesses.

In this edition:

The Congress of Vienna: A Model for Peace?
The 2025 Peace Talks: What’s Different?
The Missing Metternich?

The Congress of Vienna: A Model for Peace?

The challenge with the War in Ukraine is in bringing all sides to the table and forging a settlement that ideally serves Ukrainian, Russian and Western interests.

FOR GOVERNMENTS. The Congress of Vienna succeeded because it recognized systemic power realities in Europe. European nations came together to find a new order where no single power dominated the continent. The so called balance of power system. A 2025 Metternich must find a balance between deterring future Russian revisionism and avoiding a settlement that undermines Ukraines sovereignty. The Vienna Congress shows that negotiations require a mediator who can moderate between all parties like Metternich did in 1815.

FOR BUSINESS. Any future peace settlement in Ukraine will impact industries. Companies must prepare for multiple scenarios — from a protracted conflict to a fragile peace deal with ongoing instability. A peace deal could lead to partial sanctions relief for Russia, However, businesses should not expect a full reset.

The 2025 Peace Talks: What’s Different?

The aim of the Vienna Congress was to draw up long-term stability in Europe. At the negotiating table, France’s position was weak compared to that of Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia.

FOR GOVERNMENTS. The structure of 2025 shares some similarities with 1815. First, we have a clear aggressor — in 1815, it was France, now it is Russia. Second, we face a violation of borders — then, France had conquered most of Europe; today, Russia occupies over 20% of Ukraine. Third, there is a mutual interest in ending the war, at least in theory. Both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin have stated their willingness to negotiate, just as European monarchies in 1815 sought to restore stability after years of the Napoleonic wars. However, Russia remains a force with nuclear capabilities. This means that any negotiations will not be dictated to Russia but rather with Russia. European policymakers must weigh how much deterrence is politically and economically viable. Every Euro spent on military readiness is a Euro not spent on innovation, infrastructure, or social welfare.

FOR BUSINESS. If deterrence remains costly, businesses could see higher taxation and new industrial policies favoring defense-related innovation over civilian R&D. Investors should also consider the long-term business risks of European economic fragmentation. If different European nations divide on how to deal with Russia — some pushing for economic engagement, others for stricter containment — companies operating across borders may face conflicting regulatory pressures, trade barriers, or sanctions risks.

Geopolitical insights are best when shared —send this to someone who values clarity in complexity.

History shows that one skilled mediator can shape the outcome of negotiations. In 1815, Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich played an important role at the Congress of Vienna. If peace talks for Ukraine materialize in 2025, who will step into this role?

FOR GOVERNMENTS The US administration might prioritize a settlement and push for negotiations. However, European leaders remain sceptical of Trump’s transactional approach, fearing a settlement that sacrifices long-term European security for short-term US interests. Beijing has positioned itself as a diplomatic alternative to the West. However, China’s alignment with Russia and its broader geopolitical ambitions in Europe could tilt the balance in favor of Moscow and undermine European interests. Could Switzerland, Türkiye, or even the UAE step in? These actors are small or middle powers. However neutrality or non-alignment may allow them to host negotiations and act as facilitators.

FOR BUSINESS. The key question for businesses is not just if a settlement happens, but who shapes it. If the US leads negotiations, a focus could be on securing American business interests in reconstruction and energy markets. European firms could find themselves competing with US companies for access to post-war Ukraine. If China gains a role, it may push for economic guarantees favorable to Beijing, securing long-term infrastructure contracts and energy deals.

Weekly Thought Provoker

Last week, Geopolitically Correct asked readers about How should Europe deal with Chinese investment in its strategic industries? The result was as follows:

50% pointed to a focus on full openness for Chinese investments. An open economy has many benefits, as it leads to growth opportunities. However, in strategic industries, countries need to be more selective about who they partner with. This week we’re asking: Who can lead a Metternich-style negotiation in 2025?

Looking for our full analysis? Subscribe to Geopolitically Correct on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or your preferred platform.

In Review

Volkswagen, struggling with declining demand and intensifying competition, is reportedly in talks with Chinese carmakers to take over parts of its production in Europe. This development is part of a broader trend of Chinese investment in European industries. Geopolitically Correct analyses what this means for Europe and Switzerland, assessing the strategic implications for governments and businesses.