• Europe must now move from debating security to defining it. This requires a new geopolitical responsibility, balancing deterrence with diplomatic audacity. Diplomacy is not weakness; it is the strategic strength that builds stability, accountability, and lasting peace.

The author is a political scientist with a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Vienna.

Istanbul's silent diplomacy and the window to peace

The negotiations in Istanbul represented one of the rare moments when the outlines of a possible settlement briefly appeared. The discussions explored key options such as Ukraine's neutrality, international security guarantees, and phased approaches to contested territories. Although politically sensitive and diplomatically fragile, this framework addressed core security concerns on both sides and opened a space for genuine de-escalation.

Two years later, the political and military landscape has hardened. Ukraine's counteroffensive has not achieved the strategic shift many anticipated, while Russia's gains have remained limited despite heavy human and material costs. Western support has sustained Ukraine’s resilience but has not delivered a decisive victory. At the same time, Russia has demonstrated that it cannot fully impose its political objectives through force alone. This strategic stalemate underscores a crucial reality: this war will not be won on the battlefield.

The spirit of Helsinki: Europe's forgotten principles of security

The 1975 Helsinki Final Act remains one of Europe’s most important diplomatic achievements. Its principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, non-intervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes provided a shared language and framework that helped reduce tensions during the Cold War.

Returning to these principles does not mean overlooking aggression or legitimizing territorial gains. Rather, it means reactivating a diplomatic framework that all parties, including Russia, once endorsed. By grounding negotiations in shared norms, Europe can rebuild a credible political process that avoids the weaknesses of temporary ceasefires and transactional arrangements.

Diplomacy is realism, not surrender

One of the main barriers to renewed diplomatic efforts has been the perception that negotiations would reward aggression. This concern is understandable given the scale of violence and the stakes involved. Yet diplomacy should never be mistaken for a concession. It is not about legitimizing unlawful acts but about ending wars that cannot be won militarily and creating the conditions for justice, reconstruction, and stability.

A diplomatic framework inspired by Istanbul and Helsinki would not weaken Ukraine's sovereignty. On the contrary, it could reinforce it through international mechanisms and collective guarantees. Accountability for war crimes, reparations, and respect for territorial integrity must remain at the center of any future settlement. However, none of these goals can be achieved while large-scale hostilities continue.

Europe's test: Time to redefine its own security

The war has also exposed Europe's limited strategic autonomy. While US support has been indispensable, growing political divisions in Washington have made long-term assistance less predictable. Europe must therefore assume greater responsibility for defining and maintaining its own security order.

The original Helsinki process, though involving both superpowers, was essentially driven by European diplomacy. A contemporary equivalent should likewise be shaped by European actors such as the EU, the OSCE, and neutral states capable of credible mediation. By taking such initiative, Europe can move from being a bystander in its own neighborhood to a shaper of postwar security architecture.

A strategic turning point: Europe’s return to diplomacy

Reengaging with diplomatic frameworks inspired by Istanbul and Helsinki will not be easy. It requires political courage, strategic patience, and the will to question entrenched narratives. Yet history shows that even during deep divisions, Europe has been able to craft innovative mechanisms for dialogue. The Helsinki Final Act, forged at the height of ideological confrontation, established common norms that structured European security for decades.

Today, the risks are equally high. An indefinite war risks deepening instability, draining economic vitality, and eroding the very norms the international community seeks to protect. A structured diplomatic process rooted in historical principles and adapted to contemporary realities offers a far more sustainable alternative.

How can Europe's peace map be drawn?

Europe stands at a historic crossroads. This moment will define not only the outcome of the Russia–Ukraine war but also the continent’s future security architecture. The choice is not between victory and defeat but between endless conflict and a negotiated order based on mutual guarantees and respect for the law.

The Istanbul and Helsinki moments are embedded in Europe’s collective diplomatic memory. One symbolizes the pursuit of peace amid war, the other the construction of shared security amid division. Remembering these legacies offers not nostalgia but direction, a compass for Europe’s strategic future.

Europe must now move from debating security to defining it. This requires a new geopolitical responsibility, balancing deterrence with diplomatic audacity. Diplomacy is not weakness; it is the strategic strength that builds stability, accountability, and lasting peace.

A sustainable European security order cannot be built through new alliances or more weapons, but through a renewed diplomatic vision. The door opened in Istanbul and the principles forged in Helsinki remain the firmest foundations for such a vision. True peace is not drawn on maps; it is negotiated at the table.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.