Discussions about the security architecture have caused concern among Europeans, who suspect that Russia is trying to use this topic to distract attention from the war in Ukraine and to gain greater influence over decisions made at the continental level.
Currently, two words are enough to unsettle Europeans: security architecture, emphasizes Euronews.
The subject has become central to negotiations aimed at ending the war triggered by Russia in Ukraine, after the American president Donald Trump suggested concluding a "very big and beautiful deal" that "could involve the whole of Europe".
Subsequently, his special envoy, Jared Kushner, published an extensive message on social media, presenting several principles for creating a "more stable and predictable security environment" on the continent.
However, Kushner's message overlooked the fact that Moscow launched a large-scale invasion against a sovereign state recognized internationally. Instead, the American official emphasized "decades of mistrust" and "divergent security concerns" between Europe and Russia.
"For more than 30 years, Europe and Russia have tried to establish a durable security framework," he wrote.
The wording caused dissatisfaction among Europeans, who quickly pointed out that it is not the European states but Russia that has undermined the security architecture built in the last century.
"We already have a European security architecture," said the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, on Monday at a G7 meeting held in Paris.
"The only one violating this security architecture is Russia. That is why we must ensure that, in the negotiations, there are clear concessions from Moscow. Otherwise, we will continue to witness such attacks," she warned.
The war triggered by Russia against Ukraine is considered a violation of several international agreements, including the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Paris Charter, documents that form the basis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
Also, Moscow violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, by which it committed not to use force against Ukraine except in cases of self-defense, as well as the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which guarantees the territorial integrity of all states.
Russia has also been accused of committing war crimes, including the crime of aggression, flagrantly ignoring international law.
"Europe does not need a new security architecture, as Russia tries to make us believe, but simply the restoration of the existing security architecture," said German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, supporting the same position as Kaja Kallas.
In turn, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, warned during a visit to Romania that "relevant discussions about Europe's security architecture can only take place after achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine".
She emphasized that this must happen only under the condition that Europe participates in the negotiations.
"An agreement on the future of Ukraine and Europe, concluded without us being at the negotiating table, would not only be unwise. It would, in fact, be impossible," said Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
"Trump plays Putin's game"
The firm reactions of European leaders come at a time when they are trying to bring diplomacy back to a normal track after worrying events in October. Then, Donald Trump concluded an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the supply of diesel fuel, relaxed long-standing sanctions imposed on Moscow, and harshly attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The rapid succession of these events shocked Europe and brought back fears that Trump and Putin might secretly negotiate a deal leading to Ukraine's capitulation. In this context, the American leader's promise of a "big and beautiful deal" involving the whole of Europe fueled suspicions.
Vladimir Putin has never hidden his deep hostility towards NATO, the alliance created after World War II to ensure deterrence of aggression through collective defense.
In the weeks before the large-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia sent NATO an ultimatum demanding the halt of the alliance's eastward expansion and the withdrawal of troops from states that joined after 1997. These demands were categorically rejected.
A few months after the war broke out, Finland and Sweden, two countries that traditionally maintained neutrality, applied to join NATO.
Despite this failure, Putin has not abandoned his plan to "destroy" NATO and to deal separately with European states, says Judy Dempsey, senior fellow at Carnegie Europe. She considers that the current discussions about a new security architecture directly serve Russia's interests.
"It is an attempt by the Kremlin and President Trump to bypass NATO and redraw Europe's security architecture. It is also an attempt to break the link within the transatlantic alliance, whose foundation is NATO," Dempsey explained.
"Trump plays Putin's game. Europeans must say no to this idea. We have only one security architecture, and that is NATO. There is no reason to change it. The only reason it is threatened is because Russia is attacking Ukraine with full force," she added.
European officials involved in the peace process have noted Russia's particular interest in the security architecture topic. They believe Moscow is trying to shift attention away from the essential issues on the negotiation table: stopping hostilities and providing security guarantees for Ukraine.
Russia has repeatedly refused to accept a ceasefire, including a temporary one limited to certain areas. Also, Moscow opposes the deployment of Western troops on Ukrainian territory after the war ends. In parallel, it has intensified air attacks, trying to leave the Ukrainian population without resources and heat before winter arrives.
Instead, Russian officials openly talk about a much broader perspective, almost as if Ukraine were only a secondary detail. Putin frequently refers to the "deep causes of the conflict," a phrase through which Moscow actually designates NATO's eastward expansion. In turn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists on the necessity of building a "new security architecture" on the Eurasian continent.
For Europeans, this discourse reflects Russia's ambitions to expand its sphere of influence and to obtain a more important role in decision-making at the continental level. Moscow would even seek to gain veto power over future NATO enlargements, although it has no authority in this regard.
"Russia is interested in discussing Europe's security architecture because it wants to have greater influence over European decisions regarding Ukraine," said Natia Seskuria, senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
"By expanding the negotiations, Moscow tries to turn Ukraine's future into a secondary issue, included in a broader agreement on relations between Russia and Europe," she explained.
Including security architecture on the already long list of topics addressed in peace negotiations risks slowing down the process, complicating the conclusion of a final agreement, and causing tensions among NATO allies. All these developments would serve Russia's interests.
"Russia could also use these discussions to emphasize divergences between the United States and its European allies regarding deterrence, future European security arrangements, and the level of guarantees offered to Ukraine," Seskuria said.
"Exploiting differences of opinion regarding acceptable concessions, Moscow could weaken the unity necessary both for negotiating an effective agreement and for maintaining it," she added.
At the moment when Europeans' concerns peaked, ahead of a new round of peace talks scheduled in Abu Dhabi, the United States and Europe issued a joint statement emphasizing that "a strong NATO will remain a central element of Euro-Atlantic collective defense."