EditWashington, Moscow skip NATO-OSCE meets, fueling fears of European order overhaul
Lavrov’s absence has been interpreted as an indication that Russia is openly questioning the Helsinki-based framework of European security
For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting convened without the presence of the U.S. Secretary of State – a signal from Washington that resonated loudly across the Alliance, even as officials attempted to downplay its meaning. At the same time, the OSCE ministerial in Vienna is opening under similar circumstances: Marco Rubio will not attend, and Russia’s Sergei Lavrov is also absent.
The rare simultaneity of these absences has raised alarm among European governments, who increasingly fear that both Washington and Moscow are positioning themselves for a peace arrangement that could upend the post-war order in Europe.
Rubio’s non-attendance is unusual in itself, but the absence of Lavrov – after a year-long effort by Moscow to secure his invitation, is even more striking. To ensure the Russian foreign minister could participate, the meeting was moved from Finland, where his entry might have been blocked, to Austria. Yet days before the gathering, the Kremlin abruptly announced that Lavrov would remain in Moscow, sending a deputy instead. His subsequent article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, declaring the OSCE degraded and irrelevant, only sharpened the message.
The confluence of these decisions has led European diplomats to a single, unsettling conclusion: both the U.S. and Russia are preparing for discussions on Ukraine that could legitimise the Kremlin’s territorial claims. According to several European ministers, Washington is entertaining proposals that would recognise the occupied regions of Ukraine as “Russian”, fulfilling one of Moscow’s core demands. This possibility – which would rewrite borders by force, has provoked open warnings from NATO allies.
“We will not accept any new Yalta,” Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told journalists in Brussels, invoking the 1945 conference at which the leaders of the U.S., the USSR and the UK negotiated spheres of influence in post-war Europe. His decision to raise the issue unprompted underscores how widely the threat is now perceived across the Alliance.
Eide stressed that the security architecture of Europe is being shaped not after the war, but during it. Allowing Russia to retain territorial gains, several ministers argued, would dismantle the principle of border inviolability established in the Helsinki Final Act – a cornerstone for European peace and a pillar repeatedly invoked by Ukraine in its diplomatic efforts.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budris was direct: recognising Russian territorial gains “instantly kills international law” and encourages further aggression. In a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council, every intervention echoed the same point: there can be no compromise on Ukrainian sovereignty, no negotiations over borders altered by force, and no deviation from the UN Charter. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga emphasised that the desire for NATO membership is itself part of Ukraine’s sovereignty – a message Kyiv and its partners are now pressing on Washington.
Paradoxically, while U.S. officials initially considered offering changes to NATO’s founding documents and urging Ukraine to renounce its Euro-Atlantic course, these ideas were dropped once real negotiations began. Washington now recognises that sovereignty includes the right to pursue NATO membership – but European diplomats remain unsure how long this position will hold.
The U.S. absence from the NATO ministerial has only deepened these doubts. Despite attempts by Alliance officials to describe the situation as routine, the last time an American Secretary of State skipped such a meeting was in 1999. Even during Donald Trump’s first term, when Rex Tillerson attempted to withdraw from an April 2017 meeting, he ultimately rescheduled under allied pressure. This time, however, there was no such accommodation: Rubio simply did not come, and his deputy – with limited NATO experience, attended a truncated half-day session instead.
Explanations that Rubio was preoccupied with peace talks have been met with scepticism in Brussels. If anything, ministers noted, he would have had greater opportunity to consult allies on the contours of any settlement had he appeared in person. Instead, his absence reinforced the impression that the U.S. attention to NATO – and to Europe more broadly, is diminishing.
The OSCE meeting, traditionally another venue where U.S. engagement is expected, is unfolding under parallel circumstances. The organisation, created as a platform for dialogue between East and West during the Cold War, now faces simultaneous disengagement from both Washington and Moscow. Lavrov’s withdrawal, in particular, has been interpreted as an indication that Russia is openly questioning — if not rejecting – the Helsinki-based framework of European security.
European ministers fear that this dual distancing signals a more profound shift: that the emerging security architecture being shaped by U.S.-Russia talks may not include respect for borders established after World War II. Until the contours of any peace agreement become clear, the implications remain uncertain. But in Brussels, the message from European capitals was unequivocal – even if the U.S. Secretary of State was not there to hear it.
The full article in Ukrainian, published by EUalive’s partner European Pravda can be found here.
Caption: A view of the plenary session during the 32nd Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Ministerial Council meeting at Hofburg Palace in Vienna, Austria, 04 December 2025. The event brings together foreign ministers from the 57 OSCE participating countries as well as the 11 partners for cooperation from 04 to 05 December in Vienna. EPA/ANTHONY ANEX
Updated: December 5, 2025 - 06:31
