Russia's Ambassador to Austria Dmitry Lyubinsky Calls for New Security Architecture for Europe
In a recently published article, the Russian ambassador to Austria, Dmitry Lyubinsky, sharply criticized Western reporting on the Ukraine conflict and emphasized the need for sustainable peace solutions. But to what extent do his statements stand up to critical scrutiny?
Russian ambassador to Austria, Dmitry Lyubinsky, accused the West of deliberately sabotaging peace initiatives, while the EU continues to focus on escalation / Picture: © Wikimedia Commons / www.rusemb.at, CC BY 3.0
Lyubinsky accuses the Austrian media of presenting a one-sided view by portraying the war as an “unprovoked war of conquest by Russia”. He is particularly irritated by the dismissive attitude of many experts towards the recent negotiations between Russia and the USA, which have been described as a “nightmare for Europe”. However, the ambassador fails to provide a differentiated analysis of Russia's reasons for the war. Both the long-term geopolitical tensions and the specific events of 2014 to 2022 are part of the conflict narrative.
However, the core of the Russian narrative that the invasion of Ukraine was an inevitable response to Western provocations is false. Regardless of NATO's eastward expansion and Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, the attack on a sovereign country cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law. By attacking Ukraine, Russia itself has violated the principles that it is now citing as a reason for a new security order.
Negotiations without Kiev - a questionable demand
Lyubinsky is particularly critical of Western actors' rejection of negotiations between Russia and the USA because Kyiv was not involved. However, this reveals a remarkable perspective: Russia seems to assume that the fate of Ukraine should primarily be decided between Moscow and Washington - without the direct involvement of the Ukrainian government.
This attitude is problematic as it ignores Ukraine's fundamental status under international law as a sovereign state. Neither the EU nor the USA have the power to decide the future of the country without the involvement of its elected government. The fact that Kyiv is skeptical in negotiations with Russia is not least because Moscow has repeatedly broken agreements in the past - for example by annexing Crimea in 2014, although Russia had guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
The Minsk agreements - a failed compromise?
A central point in Lyubinsky's argument is the West's alleged betrayal of the Minsk Agreements. The ambassador refers to statements by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who stated that the agreements had given Ukraine time to strengthen itself militarily. Merkel actually said this in an interview, as reported by the Tagesspiegel, but the interpretation of the Russian side as “Western deception” is misleading.
The Minsk agreements did not fail solely because of Kyiv or the West - Russia also failed to keep its commitments. While Ukraine was under enormous domestic political pressure to make concessions to pro-Russian separatists, Moscow failed to stop the violence in the areas supported by Russia. Moreover, the de facto influence of the Russian government on the separatists was much greater than it was officially willing to admit.
Call for a new security order - peace plan or geopolitical strategy?
Lyubinsky's central demand is the establishment of a new security system for Eurasia, which includes both bilateral and multilateral security guarantees and provides for a reduction of NATO's presence in the region. At first glance, this sounds like a constructive vision, but in practice it harbors several problems:
Unilateral disarmament in favor of Russia: the Russian proposal envisages the Western states reducing their military presence in Eastern Europe, but without offering comparable guarantees from Russia. Given Russia's attacks on neighboring countries - from Georgia in 2008 to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion in 2022 - it seems questionable whether such a new order would actually guarantee security for all states or only provide Russia with strategic advantages.
Who guarantees the new order? Russia is demanding binding security guarantees - but experience shows that Moscow itself has already broken existing agreements, including the Budapest Memorandum and the NATO-Russia Foundations Agreement of 1997. Why should the West trust Russia again now if it has not kept to agreements in the past?
Unrealistic assumptions about Western interests: Lyubinsky implies that the West is seeking an escalation out of geopolitical calculation. In doing so, he ignores the fact that the economic and security policy costs for Europe are enormous. The EU in particular has a great interest in stability in the region - a prolonged war weakens both the economy and the political unity of the Union. The idea that the West has deliberately provoked this war or is intentionally prolonging it neglects these realities.
Reactions and political reality
As expected, Lyubinsky's and the Kremlin's statements have provoked mixed reactions. While some voices in Europe are pushing for a diplomatic solution, the fundamental reservation remains: How can you negotiate with a state that is actively at war and has not respected previous agreements?
There is now little confidence in Western diplomacy that Russia would be prepared to adhere to a fair peace solution. Although it is recognized that a purely military solution is unrealistic, negotiations remain difficult without credible security guarantees from Moscow negotiations remain difficult.
A propagandistic narrative with diplomatic undertones
The Russian ambassador's demands contain some points that are worth discussing - such as the need for a long-term peace solution and a stable security system in Europe. However, his argument is strongly influenced by a one-sided Kremlin-dominated narrative that downplays Russia's own responsibility for the war and places the blame solely on the West.
On closer inspection, his call for the creation of a new European security order turns out to be a strategy to strengthen Russia's geopolitical position without making any real compromises. As long as Moscow does not give up its military ambitions and does not take credible steps towards de-escalation, its demands will remain difficult for the West to implement.
The challenge for international diplomacy therefore remains to find a way of integrating Russia into a new security architecture without doing so at the expense of the sovereignty of other states. Until then, Lyubinsky's contribution remains one thing above all: a strategically packaged Kremlin plea for a Russian reorganization of Europe.