2 days ago
How to transform the OSCE so that it fulfills its mission?
Keynote speech by Olga Aivazovska, Head of the Board of Civil Network OPORA for the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act at an event organized in Oslo by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Embassy of Finland, and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee on June 12, 2025.
Since the Helsinki Final Act was adopted, Europe, the US and Canada have lost the memory of World War II and fear of new mass violence and bloodshed. The law of force, as opposed to the rule of law, dominates the agenda and serves as a preventive factor to further violence.
International law developed as a system of safeguards and gentlemen's agreements. The Helsinki Final Act did not take the form of an international treaty in the classical conventional sense, but recorded agreements and the lessons learned from the World War II. At that time, Moscow insisted on protecting the principle of immutability of borders, but its true aim was to legitimize the occupation of the Baltic states.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, having recognized Ukraine's sovereignty, Russia then occupied 20% of Ukrainian territory and wants to take it all. It demands that Ukraine stops its legitimate self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter and withdraw even from territories that Russia had never occupied but which have been illegally included in the Russian Constitution as part of a dirty geopolitical game.
Would this have been possible if the world had reacted harshly and decisively to the attack on Georgia in 2008 or the beginning of the occupation of Ukrainian Crimea in 2014? No, because when those who break agreements faced only symbolic, rather than proportionate, consequences for their crimes, they kept going until they were stopped by force. The time for dialogues only is over. The dialogue must be accompanied by actions and readiness of the armed forces of Western countries for legitimate collective self-defence.
Today, Europe has changed because we didn't manage to stop Russia. This is not a pessimistic view, but a straightforward fact. Sometimes, even our international friends say (or think) that Ukrainians are overly emotional and traumatized. But the truth is that we have accepted a terrifying reality and are trying to resist it — rather than believing in wishful thinking, which belongs to the world of fantasy. There is no more security in Europe and all hybrid threats will become real for countries under the NATO umbrella if Ukraine loses to the aggressor.
Just two days before this event, on June 9 and 10, Russia launched 821 drones and missiles at Ukraine (mostly against Kyiv and Odesa). The country that claims to be the legal successor of the Soviet Union, which during the drafting of the Helsinki Final Act insisted on the inviolability of borders and cooperation in Europe, now uses different types of weapons: Iranian-made Shahed drones, Russian Iskander-K, Kh-101, Kh-22, Kh-31P, Kh-35 missiles, Kinzhal hypersonic weapons, and North Korean KN-23s. This is what cooperation within the new Axis of Evil looks like. In the past, at least some statements came from the OSCE. But now, not even a word is heard in response to a Russian missile striking maternity hospitals, a drone damaging a Saint Sophia Cathedral — a millennium-old monument to Ukrainian statehood and a UNESCO heritage site — or the repeated attacks on homes of civilians and completely unprotected human beings.
I travelled from Kyiv to Oslo by land over 26 hours, as this is the only route left to us. Only two days ago, my city was blackened with smoke and soot, and over a million of its residents did not sleep at all on the night of June 9 to 10. Anyone who has experienced this kind of sleep deprivation and exhaustion caused by regular night-time attacks understands that this is a tactic of particularly cynical cruelty.
When the Ukrainian Security Service carried out a successful operation to destroy Russia's strategic aviation on its own territory — the aviation that regularly attacks civilians every night and has been destroying Ukraine's energy infrastructure for the past three years of war — we hear statements from partners that Russia will face consequences, and then there is nothing. In other words, when partners stay passive and accepting, it only fuels the aggressor's appetite.
I want to emphasize: the week before that special operation, Russia killed three rescue workers who were trying to help civilians in Kyiv. Imagine — it has become the norm for our enemy to launch double strikes to kill not only civilians in their beds at night, but also those who come to help them. We are being killed every day, and it is not a reaction — it is punishment for the fact that Ukraine exists as a sovereign democratic state fighting for its independence and survival.
The Helsinki Final Act was not just a historic agreement — it was an aspiration — a shared promise for comprehensive security rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, and cooperation. But half a century later, the gap between those promises and today's reality is huge — and keeps getting wider.
The OSCE — an institution that should guard the Helsinki norms — is trapped in its own architecture. What was designed as a platform for consensus has become a victim of consensus rule abuse. When the Russian Federation, as a participating State, can systematically block urgent decisions, not for the sake of negotiation but to paralyze, we are no longer operating a security organization. We are enabling impunity.
Read also: Conveyor belt of terror: how Russia uses double-tap strikes in Ukraine, as it did in Syria
The Helsinki Final Act had set expectations, but those expectations have not been met. This isn't because the principles themselves were wrong, but because there were no effective tools to enforce them. OSCE commitments are political. They cannot be challenged in court. And in the name of diplomacy, some States and OSCE institutions often avoid what must be said — that states have violated the core norms they once signed.
We have entered a space of double standards, where "sharp corners" are omitted and breaches of the founding principles are observed but not addressed. The OSCE has become a stage where the aggressor is still welcomed, truth is softened, and violations are downplayed as 'positions.'
This is not neutrality. It is dysfunctional. I had the experience of working as an independent expert in the political subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk, and I can state, as an insider, that the dialogue process is not always accompanied by adherence to international law or OSCE standards — even by OSCE representatives themselves. Loyalty to falsehood is not a form of support for freedom of speech. Dialogue that avoids naming the guilty party as guilty does not foster trust.
Meanwhile, the appointment of heads of OSCE institutions increasingly resembles political bargaining — not based on merit or independence. Leaders enter office cautious not to provoke, mindful of reappointment, rather than driven by mandate. This results in timid institutions, increasingly reluctant to use the language and tools at their disposal.
Add to this Russia's multi-year budget blockade. The OSCE Unified Budget — now largely consumed by staff costs — is slowly turning the OSCE into a shell. An event organizer, a convener of conferences, rather than a political actor with "teeth". Field work is weakened. Innovation is stalled. Vision is replaced by bureaucratic survival.
ODIHR's reporting on international humanitarian law violations, for instance, has been reduced to a formality. These reports, once expected to inform political pressure and advocacy, are now produced and posted on the backstage of the OSCE website. What is the follow-up? Where is the voice or campaign to ensure that victims are heard and perpetrators are named? Let us be honest: the OSCE failed to prevent the large-scale war in Ukraine through the means of its mandate. But what is worse is that today, it is failing to respond to it with moral clarity.
We are often asked: "What is the alternative?"
Is there a difference between reform and denial? If we treat the OSCE as untouchable simply because no alternative exists, we make ourselves involved in its erosion. The better question is: How do we rebuild the OSCE into something that can again serve its purpose? Convening power is not about organizing events with balanced panels. It is about mobilizing political will around the values the organization was once created to protect. It is about inviting uncomfortable conversations, exposing violations, and convening not just dialogue, but the vision of a secure Europe.
The OSCE still has the infrastructure, some, yet limited, field presence, the normative framework. But if we are serious about multilateralism, then we must stop being cautious. We must act. Defend truth. Insist on accountability and lead it.
The question is not whether the OSCE still has a role. The question is whether the participating States and OSCE institutions have the courage to use it properly to ensure comprehensive European and transatlantic security.
Olga Aivazovska
