Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Monday Commentary

Monday Commentary: Europe still needs the OSCE

1 December 2025
Dennis Sammut

The Ministerial Council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will have its annual meeting in Vienna on 4-5 December. Foreign Ministers from the 57 member states, which also include the United States and Canada, and the Central Asian republics, and 11 partner countries, will congregate to discuss the future of European Security at a time when many believe that war in Europe over the next decade is likely. Ukraine is just a rehearsal for Russia’s ultimate ambitions.

British diplomacy used to describe the OSCE as “the organization to manage Russia”. It has not done a good job of that, but this task remains paramount.

The Ministerial Council will be the last major business of this year’s chairmanship, Finland, and will launch the new Chairmanship for 2026, Switzerland.

The OSCE has been moribund for some time, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, nearly ended it. But Europe still needs the OSCE, and there is hope that it will take a new lease of life in 2026.

The Helsinki Final Act

On its website, the OSCE says that it “works for stability, peace and democracy, through political dialogue on shared values and joint action. The basis for this is the principles agreed in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and subsequent political decisions.” 2025 was the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, which many in Europe see not only as the symbol of peace in Europe, but also as the beacon for the future. The Helsinki Final Act, adopted on 1 August 1975, “was a settlement on the territorial integrity of European states during the Cold War. But more than that, it linked the security of the international system with environmental sustainability, economic opportunity, and human rights. Agreement was forged on the 'freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,' and provided for equality for national minorities.”

For the OSCE to remain relevant it must remain inspired by that Act, but must accept that the present reality is different, and forge a new trajectory.

The last two Chairmanships of the OSCE, Malta in 2024 and Finland in 2025 were largely stop-gap efforts. Their job was mainly to keep the OSCE alive and intact at a time when the very existence of the organisation was in question. In this, they largely succeeded, but now there are expectations that the Swiss in 2026 can launch a new beginning. It will not be easy.

Switzerland has held the OSCE Chairmanship twice before, successfully. It has the experience, a wide network of embassies, and an able team in Bern, to successfully start what is likely to be a long and laborious journey. The new Chairman-in-office is Swiss Federal Foreign Minister Councillor, Ignazio Cassis. Cassis is also the current Vice President of the Swiss Confederation, and is fluent in Italian, English, German and French.

Quite unusual also is the fact that currently the General Secretary of the OSCE is a Turk. Feridun Sinirlioğlu is an experienced Turkish diplomat, who has held the position for a year. Between them, Cassis and Sinirlioğlu will have to craft out the new OSCE, but in the end, it will largely depend on the will of the member states, including Russia.

The Ministerial Council

Finland decided not to follow precedent, and not hold the Ministerial Council in Helsinki. According to the OSCE, “the decision to hold the Ministerial Council in Vienna instead of Helsinki reflects a commitment to reducing travel-related burdens for participating States and the Secretariat and minimising the environmental impact of the event.” However, the Finns probably also wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having to host Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, in their capital. Lavrov has in the past put a lot of obstacles in the path of the OSCE, but he also does not want to break it. The Russians are comfortable with the consensus rule of the OSCE, and they will drag their feet. So, progress on any issue will inevitably be slow. But the OSCE Ministerial Meeting will give an indication of Russia’s intentions, even if they are likely to be subtle signs.

Most of the time in the Ministerial Council will be taken by set-piece speeches by the 57 ministers, an opportunity for countries to set their stall. But behind-the-scenes meetings will take place which are more substantial.

This year will see Armenia and Azerbaijan for the first time since the early 1990s sitting not as enemies, even though not exactly as friends yet. The Ministerial Council will finally put an end to the ominous Minsk Group. The fact that the OSCE in the end played no part in ending the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is a failure from which lessons need to be learnt.

A new, reborn, OSCE, must understand that its core task remains European peace and security. It should resist the temptation of “looking busy” with a lot of secondary things. After peace and security return to Europe, it can consider other tasks. But we are far away from that yet.

Source: Monday Commentary is written every week by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu

Photo: Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, signing the Helsinki Final Act on 1 August 1975.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut