Russia has suggested that it could conclude bilateral non-aggression agreements with individual NATO member states as part of a proposed new European security framework, introducing another dimension to diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the war in Ukraine.
The proposal, outlined by a senior Russian Foreign Ministry diplomat on Wednesday, comes as Moscow seeks to place broader European security arrangements at the centre of negotiations over Ukraine. It also raises questions about whether Russia’s security proposals could gain traction among NATO members, many of whom insist that any wider discussions must follow progress towards ending the fighting.
Russia Outlines Three Possible Security Arrangements
Alexey Drobinin, a senior diplomat at Russia’s Foreign Ministry, presented three possible models for restructuring security relations between Moscow and European countries at a security conference in Moscow.
The first would involve establishing a collective defensive alliance or bilateral mutual assistance agreements. Drobinin cited Russia’s existing arrangements with Belarus and North Korea as examples.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The second option would involve political agreements in which countries commit not to support one another’s adversaries in the event of aggression. He pointed to Russia’s pact with Iran as an example of this approach.
The third possibility would be bilateral mutual non-aggression agreements.
Drobinin said such agreements could be concluded with individual NATO member states, which could then receive additional security guarantees from Russia.
His remarks suggest that Moscow is considering different levels of security cooperation, ranging from mutual defence commitments to narrower political assurances and agreements against military aggression. However, he did not identify any NATO countries that might be interested in such arrangements or indicate whether formal negotiations had begun.
Ukraine Peace Talks Put European Security Back on the Agenda
The proposals emerged as Russian, Ukrainian and US officials resumed peace negotiations in Abu Dhabi, marking the first such meetings between the two warring sides since February.
Vladimir Medinsky, Russia’s chief negotiator, said the creation of a new European security framework had been the central theme of two days of discussions. He did not disclose the details of the negotiations.
Moscow’s emphasis on a broader security arrangement reflects its longstanding position that the conflict cannot be addressed solely through a settlement between Russia and Ukraine. Russian officials have repeatedly argued that the wider European security order must also be reconsidered.
This approach could significantly expand the scope of negotiations. Instead of focusing exclusively on a ceasefire, territorial questions and Ukraine’s future security, Moscow wants discussions to address the relationships between Russia, NATO and individual European states.
Why Bilateral Agreements With NATO Members Matter
The suggestion of separate non-aggression agreements with individual NATO countries is particularly significant because it introduces a bilateral dimension into a security relationship largely organised around collective commitments.
NATO’s collective defence principle means that an armed attack against one member is treated as an attack against all. Russia’s proposal, however, envisages separate arrangements with individual alliance members, potentially creating different channels for managing security relations with Moscow.
Such agreements could offer a way to reduce tensions between Russia and particular European governments. However, they could also raise difficult questions about how bilateral commitments would interact with NATO’s existing security obligations.
Drobinin’s remarks do not establish that Russia intends to undermine NATO’s collective defence system. Nevertheless, the proposal highlights Moscow’s interest in negotiating directly with individual member states rather than treating the alliance as a single negotiating counterpart.
Europe Remains Divided Over the Timing of Wider Security Talks
The Russian proposals also expose an important disagreement over the sequence of diplomatic negotiations.
Some European politicians oppose discussing Europe’s overall security architecture before meaningful progress is made on Ukraine. Their position is that a ceasefire and a framework for ending the war must come first.
US officials, by contrast, have indicated greater openness to discussing wider European security arrangements as part of the diplomatic process.
This difference matters because any agreement involving Russia and individual NATO members would have implications beyond the immediate conflict. European governments would need to consider whether such arrangements could strengthen regional stability or create additional divisions within the alliance.
For Ukraine, the central concern remains that negotiations over Europe’s security architecture should not come at the expense of its sovereignty or its right to determine its own security arrangements.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether Russia’s proposals will move beyond diplomatic statements and become part of a formal negotiating framework.
No specific NATO member states have been identified as potential partners, and there is no indication that any bilateral non-aggression agreements are currently being negotiated. The proposals therefore remain an outline of Moscow’s preferred approach rather than an emerging agreement.
Their significance lies in what they reveal about Russia’s negotiating priorities. Moscow appears determined to connect the future of Ukraine with a much broader discussion about European security, while several European governments want progress towards a ceasefire before considering that wider agenda.
Whether these competing approaches can be reconciled will shape not only the prospects for a Ukraine peace agreement but also the future relationship between Russia and NATO.
With information from Reuters.
