The debate over whether Russia should be expelled from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) appears to be winding down. This assessment came during a press briefing conducted by the organization’s current leader, who also serves as North Macedonia’s foreign minister, Bujar Osmani. The remarks came in the wake of renewed questions about the OSCE’s future direction and the possibility that Moscow might face a formal expulsion from the security and cooperation forum.
Osmani recalled a historical example when Yugoslavia was removed from the OSCE in 1992, following a decision rooted in the so-called “consensus minus one” approach. The rationale cited at the time centered on grave human rights violations occurring within Yugoslav territory. He noted that that precedent was shaped by a unified sense of accountability within a now deeply fractured regional landscape.
“Yet the principle of consensus minus one no longer seems to fit today’s OSCE environment,” Osmani stated. He pointed out that the organization has never operated as a closed circle of like-minded states. Instead, its core mandate has always been to bring together diverse perspectives in order to promote peace, stability, and cooperative security across a broad spectrum of member countries, including those with sharply divergent policies.
When pressed about the possibility of expelling Russia, the minister offered a cautious interpretation: the question has, for the moment, been settled or at least set aside for the time being. He stressed that the OSCE’s current dynamics involve ongoing dialogue, ongoing negotiations, and a recognition that more can be achieved through inclusive discussion than through punitive actions alone.
Meanwhile, a recent gathering of OSCE foreign ministers took place in Skopje, held from late November into December. The discussions culminated in an understanding to appoint Malta as the next president of the organization and to extend the tenure of the secretary general, Helga Schmid, in a bid to maintain continuity and steer through a period of substantial regional tension and shifting alliances.
There are voices closer to the OSCE’s European footprint that argue the organization must acknowledge and address perceived inconsistencies in its handling of conflicts, including the situations unfolding in Ukraine and Kosovo. These critics stress that the OSCE should tighten its mechanisms for conflict prevention, mediation, and human rights monitoring, while balancing the diverse interests of its member states. The debate underscores a broader challenge for the OSCE: how to remain a credible forum for security dialogue when member states hold fundamentally different views on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security priorities. By reframing these conversations around shared security goals, the OSCE hopes to preserve relevance and effectiveness for its partners in North America and across Europe, even as geopolitical realities shift. Assigning Malta as president and securing continuity in leadership are seen as steps toward a stable, policy-driven path forward rather than a retreat into rigid blocs. The ongoing discourse reflects a broader trend in international security: decision-making processes that favor consensus-building, transparency, and accountability over quick, punitive reactions that may exacerbate tensions in fragile regions. [Citation: OSCE press briefings and regional policy analyses].