The Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is presently gathering in Vienna – besides without US State Secretary Marco Rubio. This has happened a fewer times over the past century, and on each occasion it has been a sign of an American démarche. Washington’s authoritative explanations about “scheduling” appear clearly manufactured this time. Everyone has interpreted this decision as a signal from the US.
But there’s another major OSCE associate that will besides be absent at the ministerial level. Russia. And its boycott is even more telling.
A multistage peculiar operation was conducted for more than a year to guarantee he would be invited to the OSCE meeting. For that purpose, the gathering was even moved, going against tradition, from the more extremist Finland, which could have barred entry to Putin’s minister, to the more accommodating Austria.
But despite all these efforts, Moscow announced just a fewer days before the gathering that Lavrov would not be flying to Vienna and would be sending his deputy instead. Rubio did precisely the same.
The likely importance of these steps does not bode well for Europe. They indicate that the US and Russia are now preparing for a “peaceful settlement” that will destruct the post-war order in Europe and, more broadly, in the world.
They besides imply the possible designation of the occupied Ukrainian territories as “Russian”, fulfilling a Kremlin request that many in Washington are prepared to accept.
Understanding this danger, European ministers in Brussels have made message after message about the inadmissibility of specified a step. They have besides emphasised the request to boost support for Ukraine. And at the same time, so as not to offend Donald Trump, they have refrained from even the slightest criticism of the United States.
An era of wars and redrawn borders in Europe?
“We will not accept any fresh Yalta.”
This was how Norway’s abroad Minister Espen Barth Eide opened his remarks to journalists at NATO headquarters, without waiting for questions.
Just a fewer years ago, the mention to “Yalta” would most likely have required an explanation for audiences in many countries. Today, the subject is debated so widely, even in the “old Europe” countries, that there is no request to explain that this refers to the conference between the leaders of the USSR, the United States and large Britain – Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill – who met at Yalta on 4-11 February 1945 to divide up post-war European spheres of influence.
Back in 1945, no 1 at the gathering was bothered by the fact that 5 and a half years earlier, it was Stalin, together with Hitler, who had started the Second planet War, counting on the division of Europe under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
“Victors’ justice” was the prevailing rule back then.
The consequence was that not only Germany but post-war Europe as a full remained divided for over 40 years. Moscow received even more than had been previously agreed with Hitler.
With this in mind, many NATO members are already sounding the alarm. This is precisely what the Norwegian minister was informing about. Wars always end, but the post-war era that follows frequently lasts longer than the fighting itself, he explained. The safety architecture is shaped not only afterwards but besides during a war’s closing stages. Europe’s task is to keep Ukraine strong, as the continent’s safety framework is being forged by the war in Ukraine.
His fellow ministers share a akin logic.
And almost everyone at the gathering agrees that 1 of the most dangerous scenarios would be 1 in which Russia and another aggressive states feel that Putin, having launched the aggression, will yet come out of the war with a “bonus”. peculiarly dangerous are those outcomes that would completely destruct the current, already fragile remnants of the global safety rules that have been formed in the decades since the Second planet War.
“If we recognise Russia’s territorial gains, that will immediately kill global law,” Lithuanian abroad Minister Kęstutis Budrys emphasised in a conversation with journalists. “And it will mean even more aggression, more threats to Russia’s neighbours – actually, everywhere.”
Ukrainian diplomats say this was the position held by everyone who spoke at a fresh joint gathering with Ukrainians at the Ukraine-NATO Council. “Our approach and our principles have been supported at all meeting,” Ukrainian abroad Minister Andrii Sybiha said as he left the meeting. “There can be no compromises erstwhile it comes to Ukraine’s sovereignty, and no border changes by force.”
And what about NATO membership for Ukraine?
In fact, there is any good news there too.
Sybiha’s mention of “sovereignty” as a non-negotiable rule includes a “NATO component” as well.
When Steve Witkoff discussed the “peace plan” straight with the Kremlin without even informing the US Department of State, the United States was prepared to promise the Kremlin almost anything, including amending NATO’s statutes and a legal renunciation by Ukraine of the Euro-Atlantic course enshrined in its Constitution.
But as shortly as talks began, those ideas ended up in the bin.
There were at least 2 reasons for this: they were impossible to implement in that form, and the US approach contradicted itself. Trump’s squad decided that they would sacrifice Ukraine’s territorial integrity but would defend its sovereignty (in another words, its independence) to save face. So both Kyiv and its partners have been actively communicating to the Americans that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations are part of Ukraine’s sovereignty. And Washington is listening for now. But for how long? No 1 knows the answer to that.
Especially erstwhile you consider the US’s willingness to abandon another principles.
An “unnecessary” alliance for America
The media learned last week that the December gathering of NATO abroad ministers would break a long-standing tradition. The United States of America, the country around which the Alliance has been built over the past decades, would not be sending its minister – Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
NATO officials were fast to downplay the importance of this development.
“Secretary Rubio has already attended dozens of meetings with NATO allies, and it would be completely impractical to anticipate him at all meeting,” Reuters quoted an authoritative NATO typical as saying after news of the US plans broke.
Everything in that message is untrue.
First, NATO abroad ministerial meetings are far from numerous. They are held only 3 times a year: in spring (March or early April), early summertime (May or June) and early December.
Second, a situation in which the US Secretary of State ignores a ministerial gathering is not simply unusual. It is simply a real alarm bell, a sign of problems in US-NATO relations.
Remember, the last time this happened was back in December 1999 erstwhile Madeleine Albright failed to travel to Brussels for a gathering with another ministers. European Pravda does not know why that was, but it is certain that since then, NATO has done everything possible to prevent specified situations from recurring.
(A number of European media outlets late reported that a ministerial gathering was held without the US in March 2003 due to the US invasion of Iraq. This is incorrect, since the spring gathering that year took place in April 2003, and Secretary of State Colin Powell attended.)
The closest the Alliance came to specified a situation again was in 2017, after Donald Trump was elected for his first term. The fresh Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, abruptly informed the Allies in mid-March that he would miss the April gathering due to the fact that he was “busy”.
Tellingly, alternatively of gathering the NATO abroad ministers, he had scheduled a visit to Moscow and meetings with the Chinese.
The US denied that this was a “démarche” or anything of the sort, claiming that it was simply a scheduling issue, but the signal was blatantly clear.
Eventually Tillerson conceded and agreed to come, but set a fresh date just 1 week later, on 31 March. The remainder of the NATO ministers demonstrated unprecedented flexibility, cancelled their plans, and flew to Brussels, where Tillerson delivered a lecture demanding increased defence spending. So the message the US wanted to send to its allies was more than clear.
In 2025, however, there was no talk of concessions.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio firmly notified NATO office that he wouldn’t be attending, but the Alliance would not be left entirely without US participation. alternatively of Rubio, his deputy at the State Department, Christopher Landau, travelled to Brussels (although he had no erstwhile dealings with NATO and his diplomatic experience is limited to Mexico).
The agenda was shortened to just half a day, although the December ministerial is usually a two-day event, and Landau attended the North Atlantic Council session only briefly, US media outlets have reported.
But what signal was this meant to send to the Allies?
European ministers, seeking explanations and justification for Rubio’s actions, told journalists that he was “very busy with the peace negotiations”, but this is not true. In fact, in Brussels he would have had even more opportunities to discuss what “peace” should look like as the European Allies realize it.
On the contrary, it is far more likely that he had nothing to say regarding the peace talks that Washington is promoting with large enthusiasm and bravado despite lacking assurance they will succeed.
The only signal about which there can be no uncertainty is that the US is paying little and little attention to NATO. And not only NATO.
Destroying “Helsinki” from Vienna
Of the 3 yearly meetings of NATO abroad ministers, the December 1 is special, and not only due to the fact that the ministers take stock of the summit for the first time. It is besides crucial due to the fact that the Alliance’s gathering is “paired” with the gathering of abroad ministers of the Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
This safety forum was founded back in russian times as a platform for dialog between the US and its allies and the russian bloc. Over the past 10 years, since the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine, it has remained possibly the only specified platform.
US attendance at the OSCE ministerial has been beautiful much a given, although there have been exceptions. For example, in 2023 Antony Blinken deliberately left Skopje before Lavrov arrived. However, at the gathering in Malta in 2024, specified principled behaviour was no longer observed. Both ministers were present at the same time.
Another example from the not-so-distant past erstwhile the US ignored the OSCE was in 2013 – the ministerial gathering in Kyiv, held during the Revolution of Dignity. John Kerry refused to travel to Kyiv. He was replaced by Victoria Nuland, who made a peculiar point of going out to see the protesters on the Maidan.
In 2025, the OSCE will meet without the US Secretary of State erstwhile more, but for a completely different reason.
Both the US and Russian abroad ministers have refused to travel to Vienna, where the gathering is being held.
Lavrov’s absence is simply a major event in itself.
The Russian abroad Ministry has been making strenuous efforts to guarantee that Lavrov could attend the OSCE gathering and break out of global isolation.
After all, Russia remembers the experience of 2022, erstwhile Lavrov was barred from the meeting: Poland was chairing the OSCE that year and refused to issue a visa to the sanctioned leader of Russian propaganda and “diplomacy”.
Lavrov was permitted to enter North Macedonia in 2023 and Malta in 2024, but 2025 could have caused issues erstwhile again. This year, the chair is Russia’s neighbour, Finland, which understands the danger of Putin’s government perfectly, and where public opinion could have demanded that the Russian delegation be barred entry to the country.
A “multi-stage peculiar operation” to safe Lavrov’s invitation to the OSCE gathering had been going on for more than a year. The early decision to decision the gathering from the capital of Finland – which would otherwise have had to issue Lavrov a visa – to the more “accommodating” Austria was likely linked to this, although Helsinki said there were organisational reasons.
Despite these efforts, a fewer days before the meeting, Moscow announced that Lavrov would not be flying to Vienna and would send his deputy instead. Lavrov besides published a lengthy article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta claiming that the OSCE in its current form is no longer of interest to Russia, that the organisation has allegedly degenerated and turned into an instrument of the West, and that “there is no light at the end of the tunnel”.
Moreover, Lavrov publically mooted the anticipation that the OSCE is “collapsing”, although he blamed the West for this, of course, not Russia.
In the context of current events, this is more than just an alarm bell.
And this was 1 of the topics discussed on the sidelines of the NATO meeting.
The OSCE is an organisation that raises countless questions and whose effectiveness is doubtful, but the foundation on which it was created has always justified preserving it. That foundation is the Helsinki Final Act, in which Western and russian bloc states agreed on the rule of the inviolability of borders. It is this rule that Ukraine constantly invokes erstwhile defending the inadmissibility of recognising Russian-occupied territories as “Russian”.
But now it’s not just Russia that’s questioning the rule of the inviolability of borders. It’s besides the United States.
Is this the real reason why both countries are “ignoring” the meeting?
The answer to this question will stay open until the peace agreements that Washington and Moscow are working on have been finalised. But the fact that the fresh safety architecture of Europe and the planet may not, in the view of any negotiators, include respect for the borders drawn after the Second planet War, is simply a fait accompli.
That is what most worries European ministers, and they openly stated as much in Brussels – albeit unheeded by the US Secretary of State.
This article was republished as part of a content exchange promoted by MOST – Media Organisations for Stronger Transnational Journalism, a task co-funded by the European Commission, which supports independent media specializing in global coverage.
Serhiy Sydorenko is an editor with European Pravda.
New east Europe is simply a reader supported publication. delight support us and aid us scope our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.
