As the war in Ukraine rages on, the West finds itself at a critical juncture. While the United States has already held a four-hour discussion with Russia in Riyadh on bilateral relations, European leaders gathered in Paris on February 17 to reaffirm their unwavering support for Ukraine and express concern over the proposed negotiations between Washington and Moscow.
Many European leaders have criticized the idea that US President Donald Trump is open to re-establishing ties with Russia, as he hopes the two countries might one day cooperate on global issues of significance. However, rather than expressing outrage, Europe should follow the US lead and explore avenues for dialogue with Moscow if it genuinely seeks long-term stability.
While such an approach is controversial given Russia’s actions over the past three years, a purely adversarial stance – defined by sanctions, military deterrence, and strategic containment – will only entrench hostility and increase the likelihood of future conflicts. Washington appears to understand this, which is why it has opened channels of dialogue with Moscow. Other Western nations should follow suit.
What could integration look like?
Rather than leaving Russia indefinitely outside the Western security order, a new framework should be designed that prevents future conflicts while upholding international norms.
For instance, a structured NATO-Russia Council could serve as a forum for military transparency, crisis prevention, and conflict resolution. Under strict conditions, Russia and NATO could resume dialogue on military doctrines and risk reduction. Additional measures could include military hotlines, force reductions near borders, and transparency agreements on troop movements. None of this would grant Russia veto power over NATO’s decisions, but it would help manage tensions and avoid unnecessary escalation.
Additionally, discussions can explore neutral security zones, including the possibility of Ukraine adopting a permanently neutral status. This would need to be accompanied by demilitarized zones with strict international monitoring and verification mechanisms to prevent violations. Similar agreements could be considered for other flash points, including Georgia, where Russia has historically exerted influence.
A gradual economic reopening could also be on the table – under strict conditions. If Russia ends its aggressive policies and abides by international norms, limited reintegration into European energy markets could help stabilize global energy supplies. Conditional agreements on oil and gas exports could ensure that energy remains a tool for economic cooperation rather than a weapon of coercion.
A post-war Western security architecture should involve Russia under a new paradigm. This framework must ensure that the Kremlin cannot dictate terms. Instead, a structured approach – reminiscent of Cold War-era security agreements – should be pursued, balancing deterrence with engagement.
SKEPTICISM TOWARD such an approach is understandable, especially from Eastern European states, which bear the brunt of Russian hostility. Ukraine, in particular, will vehemently oppose any Western-led security arrangement that gives Russia even the slightest perception of influence over European security matters.
Yet, the failure to engage Russia diplomatically before 2022 contributed to the Ukraine war – which was avoidable. Now, the war will likely end within the next year, but unless a broader dialogue takes place about Russia’s role in European security, future conflicts may erupt elsewhere. Even if full-scale war is avoided, hybrid warfare, including cyberattacks and economic coercion, will continue.
Engaging Russia in a Western security framework could also weaken Moscow’s growing dependence on China, preventing the formation of a stronger anti-Western geopolitical bloc. If tensions with Russia decrease, Western nations could gradually shift resources from excessive military spending toward economic and social development. NATO, in turn, could reallocate resources toward other global challenges, including counterterrorism and security in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific region.
The Cold War offers valuable precedent. Even at the height of US-Soviet tensions, diplomatic channels remained open, and arms control agreements – such as SALT, START, and the INF Treaty – helped manage competition. A similar approach can be explored today. The goal is not to embrace Russia as an ally but to ensure that its place in the security order prevents further destabilization.
Russia will not simply disappear from the European continent. An off-ramp must be considered – not as a concession, but as a pragmatic step toward ensuring that Western security is not permanently defined by hostility. The United States has understood this by opening dialogue with Russia. It is time for its allies to do the same.
The writer is the founder of the Global Political Research Center think tank in London, and a researcher on Russia, which he has covered for the past decade.