The Future of the United Nations and NATO in the Context of US-Russia Negotiations

Introduction

The evolving diplomatic landscape between the United States and Russia has introduced profound uncertainties and opportunities for the future of multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Recent high-level negotiations between Washington and Moscow—marking the first direct engagement since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022—signal a potential shift in global power dynamics.

These developments coincide with the UN’s adoption of the Pact for the Future, a landmark agreement aimed at revitalizing international cooperation amid geopolitical fractures.

Simultaneously, NATO faces existential questions about its role in European security, its relationship with a resurgent Russia, and its dependence on U.S. leadership amid domestic political shifts.

This article examines how U.S.-Russia negotiations could reshape the trajectories of both institutions, analyzing the interplay of diplomacy, power politics, and institutional reform.

US-Russia Diplomatic Engagement

A New Paradigm for Multilateralism?

The Riyadh Talks and Their Implications

The February 2025 meeting in Riyadh between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov marked a watershed moment in post-Cold War diplomacy.

For the first time since the Ukraine invasion, senior officials from both nations engaged in substantive discussions about ending the conflict, albeit without Ukrainian representation.

The talks focused on establishing working groups to address territorial disputes, security guarantees, and the normalization of diplomatic missions.

Notably, the U.S. delegation hinted at potential concessions regarding Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine, a departure from the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Kyiv’s sovereignty.

This shift aligns with broader strategic recalibrations under the Trump administration, which has prioritized bilateral engagement with Moscow over traditional transatlantic alliances.

By sidelining NATO and EU partners, the U.S. risks undermining the collective security framework that has defined European stability since 1949.

However, proponents argue that direct dialogue could mitigate escalation risks and lay the groundwork for a negotiated settlement, however imperfect.

Impact on UN Mediation and Legitimacy

The Riyadh negotiations also raise questions about the UN’s relevance in conflict resolution.

Russia’s repeated vetoes in the Security Council have paralyzed the body’s ability to address the Ukraine war, exposing systemic flaws in its decision-making structure.

The recent Pact for the Future sought to address these challenges by advocating for Security Council reform, including expanded membership and restrictions on veto use by conflict parties.

However, Russia’s opposition to the pact—joined by Iran, North Korea, and Syria—underscores the difficulty of achieving consensus in a polarized multilateral system.

The U.S.-Russia bilateral channel further marginalizes the UN by circumventing established diplomatic protocols.

While Secretary-General António Guterres praised the Pact for the Future as a “door to a brighter future,” the Riyadh talks exemplify how great-power politics often operate outside UN frameworks.

This dynamic risks eroding the institution’s authority, particularly if Washington and Moscow continue to negotiate settlements that exclude broader stakeholder input.

NATO at a Crossroads

Deterrence, Divergence, and Domestic Politics

The Erosion of Transatlantic Unity

NATO’s cohesion faces unprecedented strain as the U.S. reevaluates its commitment to European defense.

The Trump administration’s emphasis on burden-sharing—highlighted by calls for allies to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP—has exacerbated tensions within the alliance.

While Poland and the Baltic states have exceeded spending targets, Germany, France, and Italy lag behind, fostering perceptions of inequity.

These disparities weaken NATO’s deterrent posture at a time when Russia spends nearly 7% of its GDP on defense, channeling resources into its war machine and hybrid warfare capabilities.

The absence of Ukrainian representation in the Riyadh talks further alienates Kyiv’s NATO aspirations, which remain a cornerstone of its strategic calculus.

The Atlantic Council and CEPA have warned that failure to secure Ukraine’s membership could embolden Russian aggression and destabilize Eastern Europe.

Conversely, granting Ukraine NATO membership—a prospect Moscow vehemently opposes—could escalate tensions and fracture the alliance’s consensus-driven model.

Strategic Autonomy and the “Global South” Factor

European allies are increasingly exploring strategic autonomy to hedge against U.S. unpredictability.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s calls for an “European pillar” within NATO reflect growing skepticism about Washington’s long-term commitment, particularly if U.S. resources pivot toward Asia.

This shift is compounded by the rise of the “Global South,” which has largely resisted aligning with Western sanctions against Russia.

Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa view the Ukraine conflict through a post-colonial lens, prioritizing non-alignment and economic pragmatism over ideological solidarity.

NATO’s ability to adapt to this multipolar reality will determine its relevance.

The alliance must balance deterrence against Russia with outreach to non-aligned states, addressing grievances related to climate finance, debt relief, and representation in global governance.

Failure to do so could isolate NATO as a relic of 20th-century geopolitics, ill-equipped to manage 21st-century challenges.

The UN’s Pact for the Future Ambition vs. Reality

Reforming the Security Council: A Sisyphean Task?

The Pact for the Future represents the most ambitious UN reform effort in decades, advocating for Security Council expansion to include permanent seats for Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

This proposal seeks to rectify historical inequities—such as Africa’s lack of a permanent seat—while enhancing the body’s legitimacy.

However, Russia’s resistance to diluting its veto power, coupled with U.S. hesitancy to cede influence, has stalled progress.

The pact’s call for conflict parties to abstain from voting on resolutions affecting their disputes—a direct response to Russia’s Ukraine vetoes—faces similar hurdles.

Digital Governance and Climate Action: Bridging Divides

The pact’s annexes on digital cooperation and future generations highlight the UN’s evolving priorities.

The Global Digital Compact aims to regulate artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, areas where U.S.-China rivalry complicates consensus.

Meanwhile, the Declaration on Future Generations enshrines intergenerational equity in climate policy, aligning with the Paris Agreement’s goals.

Yet, without binding enforcement mechanisms, these initiatives risk becoming aspirational rhetoric, particularly as Russia and its allies reject external oversight.

Synthesis: Pathways and Pitfalls

Scenario 1: Managed Competition

If U.S.-Russia negotiations yield a fragile détente, NATO could pivot toward containing China while maintaining minimal engagement with Moscow.

The UN, bolstered by the Pact for the Future, might incrementally reform the Security Council, leveraging middle-power coalitions to bypass great-power gridlock.

This scenario assumes sustained U.S. commitment to multilateralism—a precarious bet given domestic political volatility.

Scenario 2: Strategic Decoupling

A U.S. withdrawal from NATO—a possibility under a second Trump term—would force Europe to accelerate defense integration, potentially fracturing the alliance.

The UN, meanwhile, could devolve into irrelevance as bilateralism and regional blocs dominate global governance.

Russia would exploit this fragmentation, cementing its influence in Africa and the Middle East through energy deals and security partnerships.

Scenario 3: Renewed Multilateralism

The optimal—if improbable—outcome would see the U.S. and Russia channeling their rivalry into UN frameworks, revitalizing the Security Council and empowering NATO as a stabilizing force in Euro-Atlantic security.

This would require unprecedented diplomatic concessions, including Ukrainian neutrality and Russian adherence to international law.

Conclusion

The future of the UN and NATO hinges on whether the U.S. and Russia can reconcile their strategic interests with the imperatives of multilateral cooperation.

While the Riyadh talks offer a glimmer of diplomatic hope, they also underscore the fragility of institutions built on post-World War II consensus.

For NATO, the path forward lies in balancing deterrence with adaptation, integrating Ukraine while engaging the “Global South.”

For the UN, success depends on translating the Pact for the Future from rhetoric to action, overcoming veto politics through incremental reform. In both cases, the alternative—a world order shaped solely by great-power bargains—threatens to unravel decades of collective security and shared prosperity