Lasting security cannot be built on temporary solutions

By Zeljko Sajn for Kosovo online

“Peace is possible only if the causes of this crisis are removed.” With that sentence, spoken in response to a question from Politika, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not offer a timeline or a simple solution. Instead, he outlined a fundamental political framework within which subsequent interpretations unfolded—ranging from questions of European security and the role of the North Atlantic Alliance to possible negotiation formats and pathways to peace.

Within this framework, negotiations are not rejected but placed on a political plane that presupposes consideration of the broader context of the conflict. The focus thus shifts from the question of timing to the question of structure: not when peace will come, but what it will rest upon. It is precisely this distinction that reflects the difference between diplomacy as a short-term instrument and diplomacy as a mechanism for the long-term ordering of relations.

The Russian side identifies changes in the European security architecture as a key element of this framework, above all NATO’s expansion and the manner in which security expectations were shaped after the Cold War. In this interpretation, the emphasis is not on individual moves, but on a prolonged process that gradually altered the strategic balance. Accordingly, the war is viewed as part of a broader sequence of political decisions rather than as a separate, isolated event.

At the same time, from the perspective of Ukraine and much of the West, security arrangements are seen as the outcome of sovereign decisions by states seeking stability and predictability. Ukraine views itself as a political subject with the right to independently shape its foreign-policy course, while discussions about its status are perceived as an opportunity for that position to be internationally confirmed and secured over the long term.

It is precisely this divergence in starting points that gives Anchorage its significance—not as a place where positions converged, but as a moment when it became clear that a political solution cannot be built without discussions on security guarantees. Anchorage brought back to the center of debate concepts that had long been taken for granted, but never fully clarified.

In this sense, Anchorage does not exhaust its role as a diplomatic platform for ending the current conflict. The insistence on “removing the causes of the crisis,” as well as the re-examination of security arrangements that have shaped international relations for decades, indicates that discussions are also being held about the limits of the post–Cold War order. There is still no talk of a new system or its rules, but the existing one is being viewed from a new perspective—through the question of its long-term sustainability.

The announcement of possible talks in Abu Dhabi, with the mediating role of the United States, represents an attempt to institutionalize this dialogue. Washington appears in this process as an actor capable of contributing to the stabilization of talks by connecting parties whose interests differ but are mutually interdependent. Abu Dhabi is thus emerging as a working diplomatic platform intended for elaborating political parameters rather than delivering quick or symbolic conclusions.

Even if representatives of the United States do not appear in the public phase of the talks in Abu Dhabi, this does not signify a halt to the negotiating process. In contemporary diplomacy, key breakthroughs are often achieved through quiet diplomacy and parallel channels of communication, far from the public eye, yet guided by clearly defined political objectives.

In the background of this process unfolds so-called quiet diplomacy, often invisible to the public but crucial to its continuity. It consists of constant bilateral, trilateral, and broader multilateral contacts, technical discussions, and working meetings in which possibilities are explored, limits tested, and positions gradually aligned—far from the spotlight and day-to-day politics. Its results are rarely announced immediately, but become recognizable through shifts in tone, readiness for dialogue, and the emergence of common points that later receive confirmation at the highest political level.

Experiences from previous negotiating processes show that lasting agreements require clearly defined political frameworks and long-term commitment. In that sense, the talks currently being mentioned do not signal a rapid resolution, but rather confirm that the diplomatic process has once again been placed at the center of political thinking. Insistence on the causes of the crisis, however differently they may be interpreted, indicates that peace is no longer viewed as a one-off event, but as a structure that must be carefully and gradually built.

For this reason, the role of international institutions—above all the United Nations—at this stage is not limited to daily reactions, but is linked to the final phase of the process: the stage in which long-term political and diplomatic efforts are translated into internationally recognized frameworks and procedures. Only then do political agreements acquire a lasting form, and relations gain an element of predictability.
Ultimately, what is today referred to as negotiations does not represent a sign of weakness on any side, but an acknowledgment that lasting security cannot be built on temporary solutions. Peace, if it is achieved, will not be the result of a single meeting or decision, but the consequence of establishing a sustainable balance in which political interests, security guarantees, and the international order must find a shared, long-term equilibrium.