Follow us on social

google cta
Osce-scaled

Austria should buck the West and welcome Russia to key security meeting

Leaders who condemn Moscow's presence at the OSCE are acting like 'insulted liver sausages,' not diplomats.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

In recent years, many Western diplomats — let alone politicians — appear to have forgotten the very meaning of diplomacy. It does not mean agreeing on everything with your friends. It means negotiating with rivals and sometimes even enemies. That in turn means learning about them, so as to try to understand their goals, their view of their own countries’ vital interests, and therefore the issues on which compromise will or will not be possible.

Sometimes this will lead to the conclusion that no compromise is possible; but the only legitimate path to this conclusion is through talking. Increasingly, however, the West has adopted the stance that just meeting with adversaries at all involves some sort of surrender or moral compromise.

Hence the widespread condemnation by Western politicians and commentators of the Austrian decision to permit sanctioned Russian lawmakers to attend a meeting in Vienna of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) something that, as the Austrian government has pointed out, it is formally bound to do as the host country of the OSCE headquarters.

The condemnation of course stems from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has rightly been the subject of economic sanctions and condemnation by Western states, including Austria. It should be remembered however that the OSCE was created during the Cold War, explicitly as a means of engaging Moscow in discussions of European security. Soviet participation was not broken off by the West during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, nor did Russia, Germany or France demand the barring of American and British participation as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Austria is a member of the European Union, but under the terms of the treaty of 1954 by which Western and Soviet occupation forces withdrew from the country, it has not joined NATO or any other military alliance. It has sent economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, but no military aid.

This neutrality was the reason why the OSCE headquarters was established in Austria. Long before that however, it had allowed Vienna to become a very useful place for contacts and talks between the Soviet Union and the West – and this was recognized as advantageous by Western governments. During the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was a closed system, cultivating Soviet contacts in order to try to learn more about the place was something that Western governments and experts greatly desired. Vienna therefore was also a paradise for spies from both sides.

Sanctions by Western governments against individuals visiting their countries are of course at the discretion of the countries concerned, but they have no wider grounding in international law. As this case demonstrates, they are not only a barrier to diplomacy and the acquisition of knowledge, but also (especially as imposed by Washington), they have a tendency to extend themselves to third countries who did not impose the sanctions, and thereby to damage relations with them.

These sanctions are extremely irritating to many countries around the world (including partners like India), who see it as yet another sign of a Western assumption of moral arrogance, and a legacy of Western imperialism, the memory of which in fact cancels out Western moral superiority. As former Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon has written:

"Alienated and resentful, many developing countries see the war in Ukraine and the West’s rivalry with China as distracting from urgent issues such as debt, climate change, and the effects of the pandemic.”

It would be different if NATO were actually at war with Russia; though even then meetings on neutral ground could be beneficial. But the Biden administration has made clear that it does not want Washington's assistance to Ukraine to become a direct war with Russia. President Biden and other U.S. and European officials have also stated their belief that in the end, some form of negotiated agreement with Russia will be necessary — albeit on terms advantageous to Ukraine.

This being so, there can be no argument in legality, morality or practicality for preventing Russian politicians from going to Vienna, and listening to what they have to say and have them listen to Western concerns. We pay our diplomats to practice diplomacy, not — to borrow an Austrian phrase — to behave like insulted liver sausages.


he closing session of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Belgrade, 4 December 2015. (OSCE/Jonathan Perfect)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.