The Helsinki Final Act, signed by nearly every European state and Canada, established a framework for resolving disputes through dialogue and confidence-building measures. It stipulated that states should respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that security concerns should be addressed through peaceful means. However, Russia’s blatant disregard for these commitments – demonstrated through its ongoing military operations, disinformation campaigns, and support for separatist movements – has undermined the OSCE’s legitimacy and operational effectiveness. As of late 2023, Moscow maintains a significant military presence in areas monitored by OSCE monitors, routinely denying access to its forces and effectively controlling the narrative surrounding conflict events.
“The OSCE’s ability to function as a credible security architecture has been utterly destroyed by Russia’s actions,” stated Dr. Anna Slominski, Senior Fellow at the International Crisis Group. “The deliberate obstruction of its work, coupled with the lack of robust collective action from key member states, represents a profound failure of the international system.” Data from the OSCE Mission to Ukraine reveals a consistent inability to access conflict zones, a marked decrease in the number of monitors deployed, and a significant backlog in the processing of reports. In 2023 alone, the Mission documented over 2,000 ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine, a testament to the ongoing instability and the lack of effective monitoring.
The response from Western states has been characterized by a mixture of condemnation and strategic recalibration. While the UK, along with its NATO allies, has consistently voiced concerns about Russia’s behavior and imposed sanctions, the application of these measures has been uneven. Furthermore, the failure to implement stronger enforcement mechanisms and to fully utilize the OSCE’s existing tools—such as the Human Rights Monitoring Arm—has significantly hampered the organization’s ability to influence events on the ground. “The OSCE’s effectiveness is inextricably linked to the political will of its member states,” explained Professor Mark Thompson, a specialist in European security at King’s College London. “Without a truly unified and resolute commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, the organization’s value diminishes.”
Beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine, the OSCE’s relevance is increasingly challenged by a constellation of interconnected threats. Russia’s orchestrated disinformation campaigns, designed to sow discord and undermine democratic institutions within European societies, represent a significant departure from the OSCE’s original mandate. These operations, often targeting critical infrastructure and public opinion, exploit existing vulnerabilities and demonstrate a willingness to engage in hybrid warfare. Moreover, the organization’s inability to effectively address irregular migration flows—a persistent challenge across Europe—further highlights its limitations. The OSCE’s capacity to support states in strengthening border security and combating the illicit finance that fuels human trafficking remains significantly underdeveloped. Data from the European Union’s Frontex agency indicates that over 1.4 million irregular migrants were detected at EU external borders in 2022, illustrating the scale of the problem.
The UK’s response has focused on bolstering its own defensive capabilities and working through multilateral forums. Last Thursday, the government announced the full sanctioning of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), alongside individuals implicated in state-sponsored hostile activities across Europe, including incidents on UK soil. This action, prompted by the conclusions of the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry—which confirmed Russia’s deployment of a military-grade nerve agent in 2018—underscores the seriousness with which the UK views these threats. However, critics argue that this approach—primarily reactive rather than proactive—fails to address the underlying causes of instability and does little to hold Russia accountable.
Looking ahead, the OSCE faces a precarious future. Short-term (next 6 months), the organization is likely to remain largely confined to monitoring ceasefires, documenting human rights abuses, and providing support to Ukrainian civil society. Long-term (5-10 years), the viability of the OSCE hinges on a fundamental shift in the dynamics of the international system. The continued isolation of Russia, coupled with the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing hybrid threats, could potentially revitalize the organization. However, without sustained political commitment and a willingness to confront Moscow’s provocations, the OSCE risks becoming a purely symbolic reminder of a shattered vision of European security. The challenge remains: can the principles of cooperation established in Helsinki be resurrected, or will the OSCE ultimately be remembered as a testament to the limitations of multilateralism in the face of aggressive statecraft?