Kushner Wants a NATO-Russia Council Revival to Shape Europe’s Post-War Security — but Europe Says Ceasefire First

Jared Kushner, the United States special presidential envoy and son-in-law of President Donald Trump, wants to revive a Cold War-era forum — the NATO-Russia Council — as the model for talks on Europe’s security after the war in Ukraine ends. But European governments are pushing back on the timing, insisting that a ceasefire must come first, before any new security deal with Moscow is discussed.

The proposal, reported by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, adds a new and controversial layer to the diplomacy around Ukraine. It comes just days before the next round of trilateral talks between the United States, Ukraine and Russia, scheduled for 10–11 November in Abu Dhabi, and only days after Russia launched one of its biggest attacks of the war on Kyiv.

The disagreement is not about whether Europe and Russia should one day talk about security. Almost everyone involved agrees that conversation will have to happen. The disagreement is about the order of events — and in diplomacy, the order can matter as much as the outcome.

What Kushner is proposing

According to Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post and citing an official familiar with the negotiations, Kushner has linked his push for a ceasefire in Ukraine with a call for broader multilateral talks between Russia and Europe about the continent’s post-war security.

The model he has in mind is the NATO-Russia Council, a body set up in 2002 to give the Western military alliance and Moscow a standing forum for consultation and cooperation on security issues. Its work was suspended in 2014, after Russia invaded Ukraine, seized Crimea and backed armed groups in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

Kushner set out his thinking in a statement on the social media platform X on Thursday evening. If the trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi make progress, he said, he hopes to move towards a broader multilateral format with the direct participation of European countries.

He listed five pillars for the proposed security architecture:

• permanent security consultations between the parties;
• reliable communication channels for use in a crisis;
• greater military transparency;
• reciprocal measures to reduce the risk of escalation; and
• an enduring framework for long-term security and stability in Europe.

In plain terms, the idea is to build a standing system in which Russia and European countries talk to each other regularly about military plans and crises, rather than guessing at each other’s intentions — the kind of guessing that has repeatedly led to dangerous misunderstandings.

Why the timing is the problem

European officials who spoke to Ignatius on Friday said they are open to dialogue with Russia in principle. But they were clear about one condition: they will only discuss a new security framework after a ceasefire has been reached in Ukraine.

“Both tracks are on,” an informed official from a country that is a close ally of the United States wrote in a message. But the official added a firm warning: “A Ukraine peace agreement has to be settled before an agreement on security architecture.”

A senior official from another key European country struck a similar note. “Many risks for us in this approach, but better to engage than not,” the official said. “Our approach is still that these issues can be discussed only after the war. … Not gonna be easy talks.”

Ignatius reported that there is “broad unity in Europe” on this point: any talks between European countries and Russia should take place only after a ceasefire has been agreed. He described the sequencing question — which comes first, the ceasefire or the security talks — as the decisive issue.

“Kushner wants a simultaneous process, with both trains arriving at the same time, so to speak. Europe, standing with Ukraine, is insisting that the ceasefire track come first,” Ignatius wrote.

Zelensky: “dangerous” to talk security first

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also pushed back, warning that discussing a new European security structure before the fighting stops could be dangerous.

Speaking in an interview with CNN host Jake Tapper, Zelensky said the order of the talks matters. “The idea of discussing a European-Russian security infrastructure is not simple, and it can be dangerous,” he said.

“I have been very clear with all partners: first, we must discuss how to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. Second, what the security infrastructure for Ukraine will look like. What security guarantees Ukraine will receive.”

Zelensky warned that allowing Russia to take part in redesigning Europe’s security while its forces are still striking Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure risks repeating the mistakes of the past. He pointed to the Yalta Conference of 1945, when the leaders of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union divided post-war Europe between themselves, and said Ukraine and Europe must avoid a “Yalta 2.0” — a deal in which great powers settle the fate of smaller countries over their heads.

His concern is easy to understand. Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Kyiv just days ago, firing 172 drones and 36 ballistic missiles at the capital and damaging energy infrastructure. For Kyiv, talking about a future security system with Moscow while such attacks continue would reward the very behaviour the talks are meant to stop.

What the NATO-Russia Council was

To understand why Kushner’s choice of model matters, it helps to know what the NATO-Russia Council actually was.

The council was created in 2002, in the years after the Cold War, when relations between Russia and the West were far warmer than they are today. It was designed as a forum where NATO members and Russia could consult on security issues, share information about military activities and work together on areas of common interest, such as counter-terrorism.

For more than a decade it worked, at least on paper. NATO and Russian officials met regularly, discussed military exercises and exchanged information meant to prevent misunderstandings.

That cooperation ended in 2014. When Russia seized Crimea and supported separatists in eastern Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Moscow. The council still existed formally, and meetings were held occasionally in later years, but it never returned to its earlier role.

Kushner’s proposal would, in effect, build a new version of that body — or something like it — as part of a settlement to end the war in Ukraine. The five pillars he listed — consultations, crisis communications, transparency, de-escalation measures and a long-term framework — closely mirror the kind of work the old council was meant to do.

Supporters of the idea say Europe needs some permanent channel for talking to Russia about security, because Russia is not going to disappear from the map when the war ends. Without such a channel, they argue, the next crisis could be worse than this one.

Critics say the idea is premature at best and dangerous at worst. Talking about a new security architecture while Russia is still attacking Ukraine, they argue, would hand Moscow a reward for its aggression and put Ukraine’s interests second to a grand bargain between bigger powers.

Putin’s reaction — and Trump’s optimism

Russia’s response so far has been positive. According to Ignatius, President Vladimir Putin “is said to have been enthusiastic” about a Europe-wide security plan during a meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on 21 October. Kushner joined that meeting by video conference.

On Thursday, President Trump met Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev at the White House. After the meeting, Trump said he was close to reaching a “big, beautiful agreement” that would cover Ukraine and “all of Europe”.

Ignatius described that claim as “wildly premature, given what I heard Friday from European officials.”

The gap between Trump’s optimism and Europe’s caution is the heart of the story. Washington wants to move fast, towards a broad deal that settles both the war and Europe’s future security at the same time. European capitals want to move step by step, with a ceasefire first, and they worry that a rushed grand bargain could leave Ukraine — and Europe itself — on the sidelines.

What happens in Abu Dhabi

The next test of the diplomacy comes on Tuesday and Wednesday, when working-level trilateral talks between the United States, Ukraine and Russia take place in Abu Dhabi. The talks are expected to focus on the compromises needed to reach a ceasefire.

If those talks make progress, Kushner hopes to expand the process into the broader multilateral format he has described, with European countries taking part directly. If they stall, the bigger question of Europe’s security architecture is unlikely to get very far.

Either way, the sequencing debate will not go away. Kushner wants both tracks — the ceasefire and the security talks — to move together. Europe wants the ceasefire first. Zelensky wants the war ended and Ukraine’s security guarantees settled before any discussion of a wider European framework.

The stakes are high. The war in Ukraine is now in its fifth year, and the fighting has spread far beyond the battlefield — to energy supplies, shipping lanes and global food prices. A durable settlement would need to answer not only how the war ends, but what kind of security system replaces it. That is the question Kushner is trying to answer. The question Europe is asking is whether it is too soon to answer it at all.

Why it matters

This dispute matters for three reasons.

First, it shows that the peace diplomacy around Ukraine is no longer just about Ukraine. It is becoming a debate about the whole security order in Europe — who guarantees it, who takes part in it, and whether Russia gets a seat at the table.

Second, it reveals a real split between the United States and its European allies over how to deal with Moscow. Washington is pushing for a fast, wide-ranging deal. Europe is urging caution and insisting on the right order of steps. That split could shape the negotiations for months.

Third, it matters for Ukraine most of all. Kyiv’s fear is that a grand security bargain could be struck over its head, trading away its interests for the sake of a deal. Zelensky’s “Yalta 2.0” warning is a reminder that Ukraine has seen this kind of diplomacy before — and does not want to see it again.

What happens next

Three things will decide how this plays out.

First, the Abu Dhabi talks on 10–11 November. Progress there would give Kushner’s wider plan momentum. Failure would leave it as an idea on paper.

Second, the fighting itself. As long as Russia keeps striking Ukrainian cities and power grids, European governments will find it hard to justify opening security talks with Moscow — and Ukraine will keep insisting the war must end first.

Third, the unity of Europe’s position. European leaders have so far spoken with one voice on sequencing. If that unity holds, Washington will have to accept the ceasefire-first order. If it frays, Kushner’s parallel-track approach could gain ground.

For now, the two sides are talking past each other on timing, even as they agree on the destination. Both want a stable Europe. They disagree on how — and when — to get there.

Frequently asked questions

What is the NATO-Russia Council?

It was a forum set up in 2002 for NATO members and Russia to consult on security issues, share information about military activities and cooperate on common threats. Its practical work was suspended in 2014 after Russia seized Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

What is Jared Kushner proposing?

Kushner, the US special presidential envoy, wants multilateral talks between European countries and Russia on a post-war security system for Europe, modelled on the NATO-Russia Council. His five pillars are permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, measures to reduce escalation risks, and a long-term security framework.

Why do European governments object?

They are not against talking to Russia eventually. They insist that a ceasefire in Ukraine must come first, before any new security framework is discussed. They worry that talking security while the war continues would reward Russian aggression and sideline Ukraine.

What did Zelensky say?

Ukraine’s president said discussing a European-Russian security infrastructure before the war ends “can be dangerous”. He said the war must be ended first, then Ukraine’s security guarantees settled — and warned against a “Yalta 2.0”, where great powers decide smaller countries’ fates over their heads.

When are the next talks?

Trilateral talks between the United States, Ukraine and Russia are scheduled for 10–11 November in Abu Dhabi, focused on the compromises needed for a ceasefire.

Has Russia welcomed the idea?

According to The Washington Post, President Vladimir Putin was “enthusiastic” about a Europe-wide security plan during a meeting with US envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg on 21 October, which Kushner joined by video.

Conclusion

Kushner’s proposal to revive the NATO-Russia Council model is the boldest attempt yet to look beyond the war in Ukraine and design the security system that comes after it. It is also, for now, one of the most contested ideas in the diplomacy around the war.

Washington wants speed and scale — a ceasefire and a new European security architecture, negotiated together. Europe wants sequence — a ceasefire first, security talks second. Ukraine wants guarantees that it will not be traded away in a deal made over its head.

The Abu Dhabi talks on 10–11 November will show whether the ceasefire track can move at all. Until it does, Kushner’s grand design is likely to stay where it is: an ambitious idea, waiting for the war to end before it can begin.

Sources

• Kyiv Post: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/89477
• Ukrainska Pravda: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/11/08/8061776/
• RBC-Ukraine: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/kushner-proposes-reviving-europe-russia-dialogue-1794135521.html

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.