British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss stated that the Russia-NATO Founding Act has expired and a fresh security approach for Europe is required.
According to her view, the alliance should revise its stance toward Russia.
“The Founding Law of Russia-NATO is dead, and it is time to discard the outdated method of engaging with Russia. The era of engagement is over. We need a new framework for European security built on resilience, defence, and deterrence.”
These remarks were delivered by the head of the British Foreign Office during a working dinner at a gathering of NATO foreign ministers. At that event, he emphasized rethinking support for states “caught in the web of Russian influence”, including Georgia, Moldova, Sweden, and Finland.
What is in the agreement between Russia and NATO?
The Russia-NATO Founding Law was adopted in 1997 as the foundation for relations between Moscow and the alliance. In it, the parties pledged not to view each other as enemies, while they did not abandon the policy of containment. The document established a joint Russia-NATO Council that met annually until April 2014, when the alliance suspended military cooperation in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Read more
What is in the agreement between Russia and NATO?
The Russia-NATO Founding Law, adopted in 1997, laid the groundwork for interaction between Moscow and the alliance. It stated that neither side would consider the other an enemy, though containment remained a strategic element. The law also created a channel for dialogue through the Russia-NATO Council, which convened annually until April 2014, when the alliance halted military and civilian cooperation with Moscow following the Crimea events. Additionally, the treaty promised that large combat forces, including nuclear weapons, would not be permanently deployed on the territories of member states, and it called for ongoing consultations on arms control from the Atlantic to the Urals.
The stance taken by Truss about the Russia-NATO Founding Law mirrors positions heard from other NATO members. For instance, at the end of March, Polish President Andrzej Duda argued for a new alliance concept, saying the current agreement with Russia had effectively been worn out by events.
What do they say in Russia?
In Western media, Moscow is accused of having effectively destroyed the document by launching a special operation in Ukraine. In Russia, officials have repeatedly asserted that the agreements were breached by the alliance. The Russian Foreign Ministry noted that strengthening NATO’s eastern flank contradicted the Founding Law by violating the clause on the permanent non-deployment of key combat forces.
Voicing a critical view, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Relations, stated that Western partners seem disengaged and stubborn. He characterized Truss’s statements as baseless and argued that the Founding Law is outdated, not due to Russia’s fault but because NATO has pursued a long-standing policy of confrontation. He suggested NATO should seek dialogue with Moscow instead of escalating tensions. (Citation: official Russian statements and interviews reported by Russian media.)
From Dzhabarov’s perspective, NATO is pursuing new methods to worsen relations with Moscow rather than addressing fundamental issues of diplomacy and peaceful engagement. He argued that the alliance refuses to listen and that Russia will respond to every challenge with appropriate measures. He added that progress would come only if NATO recognizes this reality and engages constructively. (Citation: Moscow commentary and parliamentary statements.)
Will NATO break the deal?
Relations between Russia and NATO have long suffered, especially during the Ukraine crisis, with member states arming Kyiv, imposing sanctions on Moscow, and bolstering deployments near Russia’s borders.
According to The New York Times, future steps by NATO remain uncertain, with the alliance appearing split between factions favoring a full severance of ties and those advocating continued contact. Poland and the Baltic states are seen leaning toward the former, while Germany, France, and Turkey are viewed as leaning toward the latter. (Citation: The New York Times reporting.)
There is, however, a broad consensus within the bloc that Russia is no longer regarded as a strategic partner bound by the troop limits proposed in the Founding Act, and the alliance may pursue greater military capabilities to counter Moscow. (Citation: NYT synthesis.)
Experts disagree on the fate of the agreement under these conditions. Aleksey Arbatov of IMEMO RAN argues that breaking the Founding Law would not help stabilize Ukraine or advance peace talks. He notes that drafting a new document would be complex and uncertain, and it would be hard to secure broad support for such an initiative. (Citation: IMEMO RAN commentary.)
Meanwhile, Dmitry Danilov of the European Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences believes a breakdown scenario is plausible at the upcoming NATO summit, where a new strategic outlook may be adopted. He suggests that recent NATO moves to reinforce troops on the southern, eastern, and northern fronts could signal a shift away from the letter or spirit of the Founding Law. (Citation: European Institute analysis.)
Danilov also notes that deploying additional forces in Europe does not align with the founding spirit of the agreement, and a break could be possible if the alliance pushes ahead with those plans. (Citation: expert assessment.)
What threatens to trigger a break
Both Moscow and NATO acknowledge that the Founding Law is not functioning as before. Some analysts believe its formal existence remains, but its practical impact has waned, reducing the risk of immediate consequences if it is abandoned. Alexei Arbatov of IMEMO RAN suggests that Russia would not be significantly harmed, and the document carries little ongoing weight. He warns that clinging to it could worsen problems, while a clean break could remove a legal obstacle to future actions. (Citation: IMEMO RAN remarks.)
Yet Dmitry Danilov warns that ending the agreement would carry consequences. He argues that a break would confirm that Russia and NATO have become adversaries, returning to a more confrontational dynamic than before. He cautions that turning back the clock would be challenging, and the path to normal relations would be difficult to tread. (Citation: European Institute assessment.)
The overall outlook suggests that the future of the Russia-NATO relationship will hinge on upcoming strategic discussions. The summit could redefine the alliance’s stance toward Moscow and set a new course for security in Europe. (Citation: summit expectations.)