Putin Returns to a 25-Year-Old Peace Plan, Seeks Revival of the NATO-Russia Council

In a biography of Vladimir Putin published roughly ten years ago, a critical but excellent book by Stephen Lee Myers entitled The New Tsar, there is a description of Putin’s personality attributed to the legendary Henry Kissinger.

Putin and Kissinger, as I already knew, and as the book also confirms, had developed a relationship of friendship going back to the period when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg in the early 1990s, at the end of the last century. That alone should make us reflect on the role Kissinger may indeed have played in Putin’s rise. What did Kissinger say about Putin?

“Putin is not a Stalin ready to destroy anyone who might one day oppose him. Putin is a man who wants to acquire the power necessary to accomplish his immediate task.”

In the context of today’s commentary, let me remind you that in the days leading up to the peace negotiations now being conducted through intermediaries, Putin put forward a maximalist peace proposal, namely that NATO should withdraw to its 1997 borders. This proposal is due to be placed on the table today in Abu Dhabi, where trilateral peace discussions between Russia, the United States and Ukraine are taking place.

Russian diplomacy is, of course, formidable, perhaps the most formidable in the world at this moment, and we can reasonably suspect the political calculation behind such a maximalist proposal: we begin by asking for the maximum in order eventually to obtain what we actually wanted from the outset. Let me once again underline Kissinger’s assessment of Putin: “Putin is a man who wants to acquire the power necessary to accomplish his immediate task.” What, then, is Putin’s immediate task? To secure peace while retaining all the territories Russia has conquered, and simultaneously to ensure that NATO countries will no longer be able to attack Russia under the pretext of Ukraine. In addition, of course, Putin wants Russia to participate undisturbed in the benefits available to the victor, meaning that alongside the United States, China and whichever other countries they may choose, Russia would help organize and benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.

I have made this introduction in order to explain that this is precisely how the so-called Jared Kushner plan has now emerged publicly, a plan that those of you listening to Gold FM actually heard me discuss as early as spring 2024. That was my analysis at the time, and I will return to it shortly. What exactly is the Jared Kushner plan, which has now been presented, for example, in The Washington Post? Trump’s son-in-law is promoting, in bilateral discussions with Western countries, a diplomatic initiative aimed at reactivating the NATO-Russia Council, or creating something very similar to it. This proposal has generated considerable anxiety among the Western countries concerned. But it should be clear to you that this is not really Kushner’s plan. It is, in reality, the plan dictated by Putin during the Kremlin meetings with Kushner and Witkoff, Trump’s envoys.

Putin could not present it himself, because he did not want to take ownership of the proposal publicly from the very beginning. It was therefore agreed between the Russian and American sides that Jared Kushner, who is eager to rehabilitate his own image, would discuss the idea publicly. The stated objective is the creation of a multilateral format between Moscow and European states, whose ultimate result and consequence would be the definition of a new European security architecture. Naturally, that process would also be intended to produce a ceasefire and peace in Ukraine.

Let us return to the NATO-Russia Council. It was created almost twenty-five years ago, more precisely in May 2002 at the NATO summit in Rome, during the period we used to describe as the post-9/11 era. These were the days when Putin affectionately referred to President George W. Bush as “Brother George.” Both men were at the beginning of their presidential mandates, Putin in Russia and Bush in the United States, and they had reached an understanding to reduce nuclear military expenditure, an especially costly burden for post-Yeltsin Russia, which had been impoverished by oligarchic plunder and by the actions of the West. At the beginning of his presidency, Putin wanted a period of peace guaranteed through the NATO-Russia Council and backed by the United States, precisely so that he could begin rebuilding Russia. It was against this background that the NATO-Russia Council, the NRC, was established.

It was defined as a diplomatic body intended to serve as a forum for consultation, consensus and cooperation, on the basis of equality, between NATO member states and the Russian Federation on all issues relating to mutual security. Later in this analysis, I will explain briefly how the Council actually functioned. For now, however, in order to underline its importance, let me return to what I wrote on Solid News in March 2024 concerning a possible formula for defusing the war in Ukraine. “The only suitable format for future peace negotiations is the NATO-Russia Council, created 22 years ago, as the figure stood at the time, at the Alliance’s Rome summit, activated only several times over that period and never in the preceding five years, precisely because of the covert preparations for the war in Ukraine.

This format will be used for negotiations because the United Nations has demonstrated the limits of its effectiveness in decision-making, most recently in relation to the carnage in Gaza, but also because there is no desire to involve other nuclear-capable states such as China and India. Indeed, it appears that Xi Jinping himself communicated that China would approve and support future peace negotiations taking place in the NATO-Russia Council format, and that he also secured Putin’s agreement in this regard.”

And now an important aside concerning what I wrote at that time, which only now raises questions about the real role played by Klaus Iohannis in the process of selecting NATO’s secretary-general. At the time, Iohannis inexplicably and almost absurdly put himself forward as a candidate to lead NATO. Was there a Russian channel behind this? We do not know. But today we can at least suspect that possibility. “Iohannis cannot become the future head of NATO. He possesses none of the qualities required of someone capable of coordinating negotiations this sophisticated.

His role was merely that of the battering ram, willing to make himself look ridiculous through a self-nomination, but nevertheless a necessary piece at that stage, when Mark Rutte’s candidacy for NATO secretary-general had to be challenged.” Let me remind you that Rutte was supported by an America still governed by Joe Biden, not by Trump. He later became Trump’s little lapdog. And let me also remind you that roughly five or six months after the 2002 NATO summit in Rome, following the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council, President George W. Bush came to Bucharest and, under the rainbow that appeared above the city that day, told us that Romania’s role within NATO should be that of a negotiating bridge between Washington and Moscow.

In subsequent discussions with Romanian officials, Bush argued that it was natural for Romania to serve as a bridge between America and Russia because of their historical similarities as former communist countries and also because of a degree of spiritual affinity, given that both Russia and Romania are Orthodox Christian countries. I emphasize this because even today Romania could still play an important role.

Let us now return to the institutional organization of the NATO-Russia Council so that you can better understand why Putin is returning, nearly twenty-five years later, to this peace proposal. I will explain how this Council worked so that we can perhaps project a possible future by looking at the past. Bear in mind that in 2002, many countries, including Romania and Bulgaria, had not yet joined NATO.

During the active period of the NATO-Russia Council, more precisely from 2002 until 2014, after which only sporadic meetings took place because of conflicts involving Georgia, Ukraine and other issues, the Council operated according to a highly unusual diplomatic principle. Russia and every individual NATO member state participated as equal partners. It was not structured as the traditional format of “one alliance versus one third country.” There were several rules. Seats around the table were arranged alphabetically. Representatives of Russia and NATO member states sat according to that alphabetical order. The Russian ambassador was never isolated or seated opposite the Alliance as an adversary, but instead sat directly among the other ambassadors. Decisions were not taken through negotiations between NATO as a bloc and Russia. Instead, every member state, including Russia, spoke in its own name as an independent actor. The principle of consensus applied. Any joint action or official statement issued by the Council had to be approved unanimously. Russia therefore clearly possessed, in practice, veto power over the specific agenda of each meeting. Imagine how remarkable it would be if that format were revived.

What would the three great powers, Putin, Trump and Xi, obtain if the NATO-Russia Council were reactivated as part of the negotiations in Shenzhen, or if a similar institution were created? Although, quite frankly, it would be much simpler simply to reactivate the NATO-Russia Council. First, Putin would gain a direct role in shaping the future military order, including the relationship of confrontation between NATO and Russia, because Russia would sit at the same table as the other states, based on reciprocal assurances and signed documents.

Russia would therefore secure peace and stability on terms acceptable to Moscow, allowing Putin to focus on the future spheres of influence agreed upon during the Shenzhen negotiations, meaning those areas that would fall within Russia’s sphere. Second, Trump, like Putin, would obtain the peace he has repeatedly presented as a central commitment of his presidency. But beyond that, he would also be able to spend the remaining two years of his mandate consolidating America’s geopolitical sphere of influence. And there is something else that is extremely important. If the NATO-Russia Council can be successfully reactivated, Trump would be able to keep Russia at the military table of the West, rather than leaving Moscow exclusively at the table of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

That would rebalance the global military power equation, and that would mean a great deal. If Trump achieved that, he could enter history. Third, Xi Jinping would secure a reliable military partner in the form of Russia. And where would that partner be situated? Precisely within the Western space, the very space in which China wants to expand economically on a massive scale and eventually dominate the commercial landscape of the European Union.

And that brings us to the European Union. Where is Europe? Where is the EU? It is not there. Why? Because of the three leaders, only Xi Jinping wanted the European Union at the negotiating table, naturally because of the commercial interests I mentioned earlier. Trump and Putin did not want the EU countries participating in the negotiations. The reason is obvious. These countries have positioned themselves as radical opponents of Russian-American plans, so Trump and Putin decided together to exclude them for the time being. EU member states will be invited either collectively or individually only during the second phase, the pre-implementation stage of the plan. I will not go further into this today because the analysis has already become fairly long, but I hope you understand the potential historical transformation that could occur through the reactivation of the NATO-Russia Council, nearly twenty-five years after its creation.

Still, I cannot avoid briefly returning to history and to the legendary Charles de Gaulle, former president of France, and to the geopolitical concept he promoted, expressed through the phrase “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.” De Gaulle wanted, in his time, to transcend the logic of the Cold War, a logic that has now re-emerged between the West and Russia. At that time, the world was divided between the Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union. De Gaulle rejected that bipolar Russo-American order, which had been established at Yalta without France’s participation, with only Britain present alongside the other powers, even though Britain itself had already entered a period of decline.

Putin today wants something broadly similar to what de Gaulle sought in his own era, namely a Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals. And you will see that all three leaders, Putin, Trump and Xi, will declare that such a system represents multipolarity. The truth, however, is that the world would first pass through a prolonged period of tripolarity, meaning the domination of the international system by the United States, China and Russia. My own view, briefly stated, remains the same as it was in March 2024.

I believe that only through such an arrangement can long-term peace be achieved under today’s conditions, particularly when we see how the global financial establishment, especially its European component, is pressuring Western Europe to continue financing the Ukrainian war effort. If this continues, it will soon cripple the economies of every EU country.

I suspect that this will also become one of the principal arguments used by the Putin-Trump-Xi triangle, namely the danger of an enormous European economic crisis, when negotiations eventually move toward the countries of the European Union.