As Russia’s war against Ukraine enters yet another year, Europe faces the challenge of moving beyond crisis management toward a sustainable and durable peace architecture. The task is not only to end active hostilities but also to design a stable security framework that prevents renewed conflict and rebuilds trust in European security institutions.
Developed within the Conversations on European Security project, the Peace Matrix is a strategic framework created by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Vienna. It outlines the political, diplomatic, and security steps necessary to shape Europe’s future security order. Drawing on insights from experts across Europe, North America, Russia, and Ukraine, the matrix identifies where incremental agreements are possible, how priorities might be aligned, and where external support can reinforce pathways to peace. This session presented the Peace Matrix to the broader policy community and explored its potential application to Ukraine and Europe’s future security.
The panel began with short presentations by the speakers, followed by an interactive debate with the audience. During the introductory remarks, Alexandra Matas, Director of the International Security Dialogue Department at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, explained that the Peace Matrix emerged from numerous track-one dialogues and aims to encourage reflection on the future of European security.
Christos Katsioulis, Director of the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, expanded on this idea by describing European security as an “architecture project.” To build it, he said, we must first understand its structure — a task made more difficult while the war in Ukraine continues. He described the Peace Matrix as a tool for navigating complex, interconnected challenges, comparing it to a puzzle whose arrangement depends on the actor trying to solve it. He emphasized the importance of approaching this puzzle from an EU perspective.
Zaur Shiriyev, Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, provided insights from the Azerbaijan–Armenia conflict, arguing that the Peace Matrix can offer valuable lessons. For many years, he said, Russia’s role and its pro-war positioning were major obstacles to peace negotiations. After the war in Ukraine began, it took Armenia and Azerbaijan just 18 months to reach a peace agreement. While the matrix will not end the war in Ukraine, Shiriyev argued, it could help prevent some of the post-conflict mistakes made elsewhere.
The discussion then turned to the role of neutral countries in peace negotiations and whether they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities. Katsioulis remarked that neutrality can function effectively only when both parties demonstrate genuine political will. He also questioned whether all actors understand neutrality in the same way. He emphasized the need — and the possibility — to bring more dialogue and negotiation back to the table.
A subsequent question addressed deterrence, the idea of a European army, proliferation, and demilitarization. Responding together, Katsioulis and Matas noted that many of these options have already been considered and even tested to varying degrees. Proliferation, they argued, would be dangerously destabilizing, while large-scale demilitarization is not realistic in the current geopolitical environment.
In closing, moderator Nemanja Džuverović, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Belgrade, asked what distinguishes the Peace Matrix from other peace indexes and frameworks. The speakers agreed that the matrix should not be viewed as a competitor but as a tool with its own unique strengths. They emphasized that certain spaces in the matrix are intentionally left open, reflecting the reality that the global environment is dynamic and new threats can emerge at any time.