Why talk of security architecture has struck a nerve in Europe

These days, two words are enough to unsettle Europeans: security architecture. ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT The issue has moved to the heart of negotiations aimed at ending Russia's war on Ukraine after US President Donald Trump teased a "very big, beautiful agreement" that "might involve all of Europe". The comment was followed by an extensive social media post from his special envoy, Jared Kushner, in which he laid down several principles to create a "more stable and predictable security environment" on the continent. Kushner's message notably sidestepped the fact that Moscow has launched a full-scale invasion against a sovereign, internationally recognised nation and instead blamed "decades of mistrust" and "competing security concerns" between Europe and Russia. "For more than 30 years, Europe and Russia have struggled to establish a sustainable security framework," he wrote. The wording rattled Europeans, who quickly pointed out that it was not they but Russia who "struggled" to uphold the architecture built in the previous century. "We have European security architecture in place," High Representative Kaja Kallas said on Monday during a G7 meeting in Paris. "The only one who is breaching that security architecture is Russia. That is why we have to make sure that in those talks there are clear concessions from the Russian side, because otherwise we will just see more of these attacks." Russia's war on Ukraine is considered to have breached, among others, the 1975 Helsinki Accords and the 1990 Paris Charter, which provide the basis for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which prohibits Russia from using force against Ukraine unless in self-defence; and the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which safeguards the territorial integrity "of all states". Russia has also been accused of committing war crimes, including the crime of aggression, in blatant disregard of international law. "Europe does not need a new security architecture, as Russia wants us to believe, but rather the simple restoration of the existing security architecture," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said, echoing Kallas's point. Speaking in Romania, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cautioned that "any meaningful discussions about Europe's security architecture can only be undertaken once a ceasefire in Ukraine has been achieved". This, she noted, must happen only with Europe at the table. "An arrangement about the future of Ukraine and of Europe above our heads would not just be unwise. It is actually impossible," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said. 'Doing Putin's bidding' The collective pushback comes as Europeans try to restore diplomacy after the alarming events of October, which saw Trump strike a diesel supply deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, ease longstanding sanctions on Moscow and bitterly attack Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The rapid sequence shocked Europe and revived fears that Trump and Putin would thrash out a secret deal to secure Ukraine's capitulation. Trump's promise of a "big, beautiful agreement" encompassing all of Europe fit in with the suspicions. Putin has never hidden his intense distaste for NATO, the alliance forged after World War II to build deterrence through collective defence. In the weeks leading up to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia issued an ultimatum to NATO to stop its eastward expansion and withdraw troops from members that joined after 1997. The demands were outright rejected. A few months after the war erupted, Finland and Sweden, two historically neutral countries, applied to join NATO. Despite the setback, Putin has never given up on his plan to "destroy" NATO and deal with European countries separately, says Judy Dempsey, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, who believes the talk plays directly into Russia's hands. "This is an attempt by the Kremlin and President Trump to actually bypass NATO and redraw the security architecture of Europe. This is also an attempt to break the link for the transatlantic alliance, the bedrock of which is NATO," Dempsey said. "Trump is doing Putin's bidding," she added. "Europeans have to say no to this. We have one architecture: it's called NATO. There's no reason at all to change it. The only reason it's under threat is that Russia is attacking Ukraine at full blast." European officials involved in the peace process have noticed Russia's keen interest in the security architecture, which they see as a ploy to divert attention from the core issues on the table: the cessation of hostilities and security guarantees for Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly refused to establish a ceasefire, even temporary and targeted, and opposed the deployment of Western troops inside Ukraine after the war. Meanwhile, it has ramped up airstrikes to freeze Ukrainians ahead of winter. By contrast, Moscow has openly spoken about the broader picture, almost as if Ukraine were a footnote in the story. Putin regularly refers to "the root causes of the conflict", a codename for NATO's eastward expansion, and his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, highlights the need to build a "new security architecture" on the Eurasian continent. For Europeans, this discourse reflects great-power aspirations to expand Russia's sphere of influence and gain decision-making powers, in particular a veto on NATO's future membership, to which it is simply not entitled. "Russia is interested in discussing Europe's security architecture because it wants greater leverage over European decisions on Ukraine," Natia Seskuria, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said. "By broadening the negotiations, Moscow seeks to make Ukraine's future a secondary question within a larger bargain over Russia's relationship with Europe." Adding the security architecture to the already long list of topics in the peace talks risks dragging down the process, complicating a final settlement and driving a wedge between NATO allies, all of which would benefit Russian interests. "Russia could also use the discussion to deepen divisions between the US and its European allies over deterrence, Europe's future security arrangements and the scope of guarantees for Ukraine," Seskuria said. "By exploiting differences over what concessions are acceptable, Moscow could weaken the cohesion needed both to negotiate an effective agreement and to sustain it." Just as the alarm reached its peak ahead of a new round of peace talks in Abu Dhabi, the US and Europe released a statement saying that "a strong NATO will remain central to Euro-Atlantic collective defence".