This text was written to start a discussion among the European left and progressive forces about a new security architecture in Europe. The first step toward such a discussion was a conference held in Berlin on November 30, 2024, which brought together representatives of left-wing parties from Germany, Ukraine, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Russian anti-war emigration. In their conference papers the participants presented both their own ideas and positions of their organizations, as well as critical comments to the report presented below. In 2025, the organizers of the conference — the Institute for Global Reconstitution and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation — plan to expand the range of participants in this discussion, which appears to be fundamental for the left forces, and are open to any proposals, including those that touch upon the ideas expressed in the report. The text was created in partnership with Posle.media and with the support of the Eastern Partnership Program.
INTRODUCTION
A brutal war has raged in Europe for nearly three years, with no end in sight. Many initial predictions have been upended, from the assumption that Vladimir Putin would quickly conquer Ukraine to the opposite belief that Putin's invasion has completely failed and his downfall is just a matter of time. Above all, the conflict has proven to be far more than a regional dispute, carrying profound implications for European security. By the end of 2024, the war has already reshaped European politics, with voters in many countries punishing liberal governments that uphold the status quo. The demand for new vision is growing, especially outside the political elites.
There is a growing danger that war will become normalized and take on new forms across Europe. The current climate, marked by alarming militarization in many countries and the rising securitization of everyday life, is fostering a vision of a more closed, isolated and fragmented Europe - one that risks neglecting critical challenges like restoring democracy, fighting inequality, and averting climate catastrophe. Avoiding this grim future will require creation of new conditions for lasting peace. It is clear that the existing security architecture in Europe can no longer deliver stability and, in fact, contributes to escalating hostilities on multiple levels.
This paper will examine a fundamental flaw in Europe's current security architecture: the division into rival blocs. It will argue that this fragmentation perpetuates hostilities and undermines efforts to build long-term peace. As a potential solution, the paper will propose the creation of an overarching security framework that includes all European countries, and will explore how this new structure could interact with existing organizations, such as NATO, CSTO, EU,OSCE, and UN.
It is important to note that this paper does not address several other critical aspects of European security, such as Europe's positioning in the US-China standoff, the development of a European army, the establishment of EU security structures.Nor does it offer a detailed plan for ending the war in Ukraine. However, the ideas presented here are intended to lay groundwork for addressing these issues. One key obstacle to meaningful discussions on these topics is the dominance of two opposing military blocs in Europe.
It should also be recognized that building a new security architecture is not a task that should be entrusted solely to current political elites. As long as social and democratic movements are excluded fromdecision-making on security matters, any such solution is likely to remain unstable. The ongoing international crisis is linked to a crisis of democratic representation, where one military bloc represents a completely authoritarian beginning, while in another, the existing governments lack popular support. The proposal advocated in this paper calls for overcoming the current model, in which narrow elites make vital decisions on security issues through opaque deals behind closed doors, and replacing it with broad democratic participation in security affairs. We argue that the suggestions presented here will make it more difficult for irresponsible officials to make opportunistic decisions and lay the groundwork for stronger democratic control.
