The Washington Post: Kushner Proposes Building a European Security Dialogue Mechanism Based on the Dissolved Russia-NATO Council

According to a column by The Washington Post’s columnist David Ignatius on November 6, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law and special envoy of President Trump, has advocated linking Ukraine’s ceasefire with broader postwar security dialogues between Russia and European capitals, using the post-Cold War NATO-Russia Council as a model for the proposed new mechanism. A senior official familiar with the negotiations confirmed this “model” to the publication.

It should be noted that the NATO-Russia Council was formally dissolved by NATO on December 3, 2025. Established in 2002 under the Rome Declaration, the body operated under a “20-nation equality” format. Practical cooperation ceased following the Crimea crisis in 2014, and its final meeting took place on January 12, 2022, before becoming effectively inactive after the full-scale outbreak of the Ukraine conflict. Kushner seeks to draw on the structure of the defunct body, not its institutional substance.

Kushner has been deeply involved in preparations for the trilateral Russia-U.S.-Ukraine talks scheduled for November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi. He envisions that if progress is made in these discussions, European countries could subsequently join a multilateral framework. This week, he led a delegation in two days of consultations in Brussels with officials from NATO, the European Union, and major European states. Following the meetings, he outlined five key objectives on X: establishing a permanent security dialogue mechanism, creating reliable crisis communication channels, enhancing military transparency, adopting reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and building a durable framework to ensure long-term European security and stability. He emphasized that any arrangement must fully respect national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independent decision-making authority; no state should have veto power over another’s alliance choices, and NATO remains the core of European collective defense.

European positions remain cautiously open: “willing to talk, but not now.” On November 6, European officials told the newspaper they are prepared to engage with Russia, but only after a ceasefire in Ukraine is achieved will they agree to discuss new security arrangements. A senior official from a close U.S. ally wrote, “Two tracks are moving forward, but a peace agreement on Ukraine must precede any security architecture agreement.” Another senior representative from a major European power stated, “This approach carries significant risk for us, but engagement is better than exclusion,” adding that “these issues can only be discussed after the war ends, and negotiations will not be easy.” According to the report, while European leaders broadly support Kushner’s efforts, there is a “broad consensus” within Europe that any EU-Russia dialogue must occur only after a ceasefire is in place.

The core divergence lies in sequencing. As Ignatius wrote, “Kushner wants the process to move simultaneously—two trains arriving at the station at once—while Europe, aligned with Ukraine, insists that the ceasefire must come first.”

Russia has shown no outright rejection of the concept. According to the column, on October 21, during a meeting in St. Petersburg with U.S. Special Envoy William Wheeler (with Kushner participating via video), President Putin responded positively to the idea of a pan-European security initiative. On November 5, after meeting with Russian envoy Dmitryev at the White House, Trump stated that a “big and beautiful agreement” covering Ukraine and “the entire continent of Europe” was nearing completion. Ignatius assessed that “given what I heard from European officials on Friday, such statements are extremely premature.”

Public opposition has already emerged. On November 6 in Warsaw, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas declared, “We already have a functioning European security architecture. The problem lies in Russia’s repeated violations of the treaties underpinning it. Putin does not have a veto over European security. Any agreement requiring implementation must include the EU.” Polish Foreign Minister Szczygiel called decisions about Ukraine’s and Europe’s future made without European input “not only foolish but practically impossible.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Sybiha stated that Russia “cannot be a guarantor of security on the European continent,” emphasizing that “we must discuss how to contain Russia, not negotiate with Russians about their sphere of influence in Europe.”

Russia’s position also retains flexibility. Kremlin spokesman Peskov said on November 6 that Moscow had not yet received any details of the proposed agreement. He acknowledged that discussions on Europe’s future security ultimately require European participation, but criticized European leaders for failing to present a credible security guarantee proposal or clarify who has the authority to represent them in talks with Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Europe was excluded from next week’s Abu Dhabi talks due to their “unacceptable record of undermining peace agreements.”

Original: toutiao.com/article/1881283181760512/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.