Leo XIV: The New Diplomacy

Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher’s trip to Moscow marked a definitive paradigm shift in the Holy See’s diplomacy regarding the situation in Ukraine. We cannot know what was said behind closed doors during the bilateral meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

The opening remarks from both the Holy See and the Russian delegation ahead of the meeting, and at the press conference following it, were broadcast via video by the Russian Foreign Ministry, and a good deal can be gleaned from them.

Archbishop Gallagher is the Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, a position comparable to that of a Foreign Minister within the Holy See. He already visited Moscow in 2021, but this second trip, five years later, has a greater impact.

First, because it comes amid Russia’s large-scale aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2022, is still ongoing. Second, because Russian-Vatican relations were excellent under Pope Francis, who gave great credence to Moscow’s opinions, but at the same time were strained by the way Pope Francis himself had made it known that he had addressed Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, urging him not to be a “state cleric.” Finally, because they arrived with a new pontificate.

Leo XIV did not change the Holy See’s diplomatic line. The latter remained constant: the Holy See promotes peace, the Holy See promotes dialogue, and the Holy See never interrupts diplomatic relations, even in difficult situations.

However, Leo XIV brought a different, more “diplomatic” approach, if one could call it that.

Pope Francis relied heavily on his personal impressions and his personal charisma. Leo XIV, by contrast, took a more conventional, institutional approach, with keen attention to detail and the conviction that peace cannot be achieved without clarity.

From his first address to the diplomatic corps on May 16, 2025, Leo XIV has emphasized that the Church must speak the truth, even when it is incomprehensible to the world. At the Rosary and prayer vigil for peace on April 11, 2026, Leo XIV went further,  emphasizing that the Church often risks being despised.

This approach represents the lens through which Gallagher’s mission to Moscow can be interpreted.

Gallagher did not go to Moscow only with a mandate to engage in dialogue at all costs. Gallagher went to Moscow with a mandate to clarify the Holy See’s position, establish dialogue to the extent possible, and, in any case, not to keep anything secret, even going so far as to highlight some of the difficult situations facing the Catholic Church in Russia.

Thus, Gallagher’s trip to Russia represents a true paradigm shift.

Gallagher made it clear right away, in his inaugural speech, that he was in Russia because the Russian Federation had invited him, establishing a framework for dialogue and a balance of power. However, he also emphasized that there are ongoing relations between Russia and the Holy See, and a channel of information that has been kept alive – and Gallagher remembered it in an interview with Vatican News at the end of the trip.

The line that made the most headlines – rightly – was Gallagher’s insistent, “This war must end.” Only, Gallagher didn’t just say that the war must end. He called for clear and transparent negotiations. He emphasized the “lingering differences” between the Russian Federation and the Holy See in assessing certain situations, clarifying that the Holy See does not give in to Russian propaganda.

Gallagher’s words, however, did not make so large an impact in Western media as they might have, likely for two reasons.

The first is practical: the Holy See’s “foreign minister” spoke in English, but his words were drowned out by videos released with a Russian translation. While the Russian Foreign Ministry rushed to transcribe and release the exact content of Lavrov’s words, neither the Holy See’s Secretariat of State nor the Vatican media did, even though they had sent a journalist to accompany the archbishop.

The second reason is that Gallagher’s clarity leaves no room for manipulation. These are not words that can be used at the peace-and-war table with political bias, because the archbishop was clear and courageous in addressing the issues.

Gallagher’s work in Russia also has something refined about it.

On the one hand, he didn’t fail to emphasize Russia’s responsibility, with words that must have resonated forcefully behind closed doors. On August 26, Archbishop Gallagher met with Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, in a particularly significant meeting. The Secretariat of State’s X account, @terzaloggia, reported the news. Kremlin spokesman Peskov declined to comment on the meeting, saying they had not communicated anything about it.

On the other hand, Gallagher managed to establish a consistent line of dialogue. So far, it has worked at the embassy level—an approach praised by the Vatican’s “foreign minister”—and now there will be constant contact at the level of the deputy foreign minister and, in particular, the foreign minister.

The Holy See recognizes that Russia is a global player that cannot be excluded from discussions, and it extends its hand to a Moscow that feels increasingly isolated.

In this ongoing contact, the Holy See will maintain its commitment to peace in Ukraine and to continuing its humanitarian mission. It will also open channels of dialogue with Russia on many other issues, from the situation in the Middle East to artificial intelligence.

What Gallagher has accomplished could be called “classic” Vatican diplomacy. It would not have been possible, however, without Leo XIV’s outlining of a different approach, with a personal discontinuity that nevertheless also translated into specific actions.

It remains to be seen whether the situation in Ukraine is an isolated case, or whether papal diplomacy will pursue this approach in different scenarios.

In a year and a half, for example, the agreement between the Holy See and Beijing for the appointment of bishops will face its next round of (re)negotiation: will Leo XIV prefer the approach of truth diplomacy, aiming to make the agreement clear and public? Or will he take a more pragmatic approach, accepting some Chinese pressure to maintain its presence?

Then, there are other high-impact issues that are very much open.

From the situation of the Catholic Church in Venezuela to that in Nicaragua, where the nuncio and Vatican diplomats have been expelled, Latin America is a veritable powder keg. The pope will experience Europe’s ferment firsthand during his upcoming trip to France. North America is in the midst of a trade war, and the pontiff’s native United States is facing crucial midterm elections this fall. There are wars in Africa and instability across the Holy Land, where the Holy See continues to advocate for the two-people, two-state solution.

Gallagher’s journey marked a turning point, but it remains to be seen where the turn will take the Holy See.