Russia’s Reported Demand That Finland Leave NATO: What the Law Allows
Introduction
A report alleging that Russia demands Finland leave NATO emerged on November 13, 2026, when the German newspaper Bild described proposals circulating around peace negotiations in Abu Dhabi. The Kremlin subsequently denied making such a demand. Finnish officials also rejected any suggestion that the country's alliance membership could be negotiated as part of a settlement concerning Ukraine.
The dispute raises a legal question that remains significant regardless of the proposal's disputed origins: can an agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States require Finland to withdraw from NATO? The answer is no. Finland's membership is governed by the North Atlantic Treaty, and its withdrawal would require a decision made through Finland's own constitutional institutions.
Finland joined NATO on April 4, 2023, following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Membership brought the country within the Alliance's collective-defense arrangements and ended its previous policy of military nonalignment. Any attempt to reverse that decision would affect Finland's international obligations, its constitutional procedures, and the security commitments of other NATO members.
The controversy also extends beyond Finland. Reports concerning restrictions on NATO military bases in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania raise separate questions about territorial sovereignty, alliance decision-making, and the legal limits of a wider European security settlement.
1. What Russia Was Reported to Demand in Abu Dhabi
The reported proposal emerged during renewed diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine. Russian and Ukrainian delegations met in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11, 2026, under American mediation. US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner participated in the negotiations, which addressed humanitarian questions and possible arrangements for a broader settlement.
The two American envoys subsequently traveled to Moscow, where they met Russian President Vladimir Putin on November 12. Discussions increasingly concerned European security arrangements beyond the immediate conditions for ending hostilities in Ukraine. The possible participation of European governments in later negotiations remained a point of disagreement.
Against this background, Bild reported that informal proposals attributed to Russian representatives included demands affecting countries that were not parties to the war. The reported provisions concerning Finland and the Baltic states attracted attention because they would reach into the existing NATO security system rather than deal exclusively with Ukrainian territory or future Ukrainian commitments.
1.1 Finland’s Withdrawal and Baltic Base Restrictions
According to the November 13 reporting, the proposals included a requirement that Finland reverse its NATO accession and return to its earlier position outside the Alliance. Other reported provisions sought restrictions on NATO military bases in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, alongside limitations concerning Ukraine's future military alignment.
These measures would have different legal consequences. Requiring Finland to leave NATO would terminate its status as a party to the North Atlantic Treaty after a lawful withdrawal. Restrictions on military installations in the Baltic states, by contrast, could affect the presence and activities of allied forces without necessarily changing those countries' membership.
The distinction is particularly important because membership does not depend on hosting permanent NATO bases. A state may participate fully in collective defense while retaining substantial national control over military facilities, foreign deployments, and the agreements governing allied personnel on its territory.
The reported proposal therefore combined questions that require separate legal decisions. Finland's treaty membership, the deployment rights granted by the Baltic states, and Ukraine's possible postwar security commitments cannot be determined through a single negotiating formula unless the states concerned accept the relevant obligations.
1.2 The Negotiations and the Status of the Proposal
The status of the reported demand is disputed. Bild attributed the proposals to informal discussions and intermediary contacts associated with the Abu Dhabi negotiations. The publicly reported account did not establish that an authenticated agreement had been presented by the Russian government or formally accepted as its negotiating position.
On November 13, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied that Russia had demanded Finland's withdrawal from NATO. Interfax reported that Peskov said no such demand had been made and that the subject had not been discussed. His statement directly contradicted the suggestion that Finland's departure was an acknowledged Russian condition for a settlement.
The denial does not, by itself, establish whether proposals of that kind circulated through unofficial channels. An informal suggestion from an intermediary, a draft prepared without governmental authorization, and a demand formally adopted by the Kremlin have different diplomatic significance. The available reporting does not resolve those distinctions conclusively.
Finland's response was unequivocal. Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen said the country's NATO membership was not open to negotiation and criticized Russian attempts to extend peace discussions into European defense arrangements. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen likewise emphasized that Finland's membership was a decision for Finland and NATO. Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said he had no knowledge of the reported proposal.
Russia continued to advocate restrictions on further NATO enlargement, including written guarantees, even as Peskov denied the specific claim concerning Finland. A prospective restriction on future accessions must be distinguished from an attempt to reverse the membership of a state that has already joined.
2. Why a Ukraine Peace Deal Cannot Remove Finland from NATO
An agreement between Russia and Ukraine, even if supported or mediated by the United States, could not terminate Finland's NATO membership without Finland's consent. The central rule is the principle known as pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt: treaties ordinarily do not create obligations or rights for states that are not parties to them.
Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties expresses that rule. Article 35 provides that a treaty obligation may arise for a third state when the parties intend to create it and the third state expressly accepts the obligation in writing. A provision directing Finland to abandon NATO would concern Finland's own treaty relations and could not acquire binding force against Helsinki simply through the agreement of other governments.
The same limitation applies to the United States. Washington is a founding NATO member and the depositary of the North Atlantic Treaty, but those positions do not authorize it to terminate another state's membership. The depositary performs functions established by the treaty; it does not possess general authority over the continued participation of other parties.
Nor would an agreement with Russia automatically amend the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO members retain rights and obligations under that instrument unless those arrangements are changed through legally valid procedures. Commitments concerning the Alliance cannot be imposed on all its members merely because one member participates in a separate negotiation.
Negotiators could nevertheless discuss possible changes to Europe's security arrangements. The United States might undertake to advocate a particular policy, or governments might agree to consider future measures subject to their constitutional processes. Such commitments would have to be interpreted according to their terms. They would not amount to Finland's withdrawal or establish a Russian power to require it.
This distinction separates the political influence of a peace agreement from its legal effects. A settlement could place substantial diplomatic pressure on governments outside the negotiations. Pressure, however, does not confer treaty-making authority over a state that has not consented to the proposed obligation.
3. How Finland Could Legally Leave NATO
Finland is not permanently prohibited from leaving NATO. Its membership rests on an international treaty that expressly permits withdrawal. The legally available route is a Finnish decision followed by the notification procedure established in the North Atlantic Treaty.
Such a decision would be consequential, but it would not require Russian approval. Finland's continued participation, like its original accession, concerns its relationship with the other treaty parties and the requirements of its own constitutional system.
The existence of a withdrawal clause also makes an important distinction possible. Finland could lawfully choose to leave NATO; another state could not exercise that choice on Finland's behalf.
3.1 Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty
Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty establishes the withdrawal procedure. Once the treaty has been in force for twenty years, a party may cease to be a party one year after giving notice of denunciation to the Government of the United States. The United States must inform the other parties of that notice.
The twenty-year condition concerns the period during which the treaty itself has been in force. It does not require every new member to complete twenty years of individual membership before withdrawal becomes possible. The treaty entered into force in August 1949, so that condition had already been satisfied when Finland joined in April 2023.
Finland could accordingly invoke Article 13 without waiting until 2043. After the required notice and the passage of one year, its membership would end under the treaty. Article 13 does not make withdrawal dependent on the approval of Russia or another non-member state.
The provision also differs from the accession procedure. Article 10 requires unanimous agreement among existing NATO members before another European state can be invited to join. Withdrawal under Article 13 is instead framed as a right exercisable by a party through notice.
The treaty contains no express provision allowing NATO members to expel another member through an ordinary political decision. Disagreements over an ally's policies, defense spending, or foreign relations must not be confused with an established treaty power to remove that country from the Alliance.
3.2 Finland’s Constitutional Requirements
The North Atlantic Treaty governs the international withdrawal procedure, but Finnish law determines which national institutions may authorize such a decision. The Finnish Constitution does not give an individual foreign leader, or even Finland's executive acting without the necessary constitutional authority, unrestricted power to terminate a major international commitment.
Section 93 of the Constitution provides that Finland's foreign policy is directed by the President of the Republic in cooperation with the Government. It also recognizes Parliament's authority concerning the acceptance and denunciation of international obligations in the circumstances prescribed by the Constitution.
Section 94 requires parliamentary approval for the denunciation of obligations that contain provisions of a legislative nature, are otherwise significant, or require such approval on constitutional grounds. Withdrawal from NATO would concern a major international security commitment and would require the relevant parliamentary process.
For decisions under Section 94, the general rule is approval by a majority of votes cast. The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for specified categories of decisions, including certain matters concerning the Constitution, national borders, and transfers of authority significant to Finnish sovereignty. It would be inaccurate to assume that every proposal concerning NATO withdrawal automatically falls within those exceptional categories.
Finland's Constitution also provides for advisory referendums under Section 53, with their conduct determined by legislation. It does not establish a general requirement that withdrawal from an international treaty must be approved by a nationwide referendum.
A lawful departure would consequently involve two distinct stages: a constitutionally authorized Finnish decision and the international notice required by Article 13. Political agreement in a foreign capital could substitute for neither.
3.3 What Returning to Military Nonalignment Would Mean
Before joining NATO, Finland maintained a policy of military nonalignment while developing extensive cooperation with the Alliance. Its participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace program began in 1994, and Finnish forces subsequently took part in exercises, operations, and other cooperative activities.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 altered Finland's security calculations. Finland applied for membership in May 2022 and completed the accession process on April 4, 2023. Withdrawal would reverse its status as a NATO member, but it would not automatically restore every element of its earlier security policy.
The most direct consequence would concern the treaty's collective-defense arrangements. Article 5 requires NATO members to assist an ally subjected to a qualifying armed attack, with each member taking the action it considers necessary under the provision. Once Finland ceased to be a party, that treaty obligation would no longer apply to Finland in respect of future attacks.
Finland would nevertheless remain an EU member unless it separately changed that status. Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union establishes a mutual-assistance obligation when an EU member suffers armed aggression on its territory. That provision has its own terms and institutional context; it does not simply reproduce NATO's collective-defense system.
Finland also has a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States, which entered into force on September 1, 2024. The agreement regulates aspects of American military access and activities in Finland and contains an initial ten-year term. Withdrawal from NATO would not, by itself, terminate that separate agreement.
The bilateral arrangement expressly refers to NATO-related agreements, however, including the rules governing the status of allied forces. Departure from NATO could raise questions about the continuing operation of particular provisions and might require additional agreements or adjustments.
Leaving NATO and becoming legally neutral are also different propositions. Neutrality concerns a state's position and conduct in relation to armed conflict and, in some circumstances, commitments concerning military alignment. The end of NATO membership alone would not establish that every other defense obligation or military cooperation arrangement had disappeared.
4. Does Russia Have a Legal Right to Restrict Alliances?
Russia may express security concerns, propose negotiations, and seek agreements limiting military activities. International law does not prohibit a government from advocating changes to regional security arrangements merely because other states oppose those proposals.
The legal difficulty arises when a state claims authority to determine another state's alliances without that state's consent. Finland's choice to join or leave NATO falls within its sovereign foreign-policy decisions, subject to the international obligations it has accepted.
Russia possesses no general legal entitlement to reverse Finland's accession, dictate NATO's membership, or impose military restrictions on the Baltic states. Security concerns can form the subject of negotiation, but they do not automatically create rights over neighboring countries' treaty relationships.
4.1 Sovereign Choice and the Prohibition on Coercion
The United Nations Charter recognizes the sovereign equality of states. That principle is reflected in the customary international law rule prohibiting coercive intervention in matters that a state is entitled to decide freely.
In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (1986), the International Court of Justice identified the choice of a political, economic, social, and cultural system and the formulation of foreign policy as matters protected by the principle of non-intervention. The Court emphasized coercion as the defining element of prohibited intervention.
The principle of non-intervention in international law does not make every diplomatic demand unlawful. States routinely criticize one another's policies, seek concessions, or offer incentives during negotiations. The legal assessment depends on the conduct employed and the sovereign decision being targeted.
The prohibition on the threat or use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter supplies a further limit. A demand supported by an unlawful threat of military force raises a different question from a proposal advanced through ordinary diplomacy. Political pressure and military coercion should not be treated as legally interchangeable.
Treaty law also protects consent. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares a treaty void if its conclusion was procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter. The application of that provision depends on the circumstances in which consent was obtained; it is not triggered merely because negotiations occur during a war.
Even a voluntarily concluded agreement must respect the rights of states that are not parties to it. Russia and another government could negotiate mutual restrictions on their own military conduct, but they could not use that agreement to exercise Finland's withdrawal right under the North Atlantic Treaty.
4.2 Indivisible Security and Russia’s Earlier Demands
Russia has long argued that NATO enlargement and allied military deployments affect its security. That position draws partly on the language of indivisible security developed through the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
The 2010 Astana Commemorative Declaration recognizes that the security of participating states is connected and that states should not strengthen their security at the expense of others. The same declaration expressly reaffirms each participating state's freedom to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, and its right to neutrality.
These commitments must be read together. The language concerning indivisible security does not grant Russia a unilateral veto over another state's alliance membership. The OSCE declaration is a political commitment rather than a treaty provision transferring legal authority over NATO accession or withdrawal.
In December 2021, Russia published draft security agreements seeking substantial restrictions on NATO enlargement and military deployments. Those proposals preceded Finland's application to NATO and were not adopted as binding agreements governing the Alliance's membership policy.
The distinction remains relevant to the November 2026 controversy. A demand to prohibit future enlargement would concern states that have not yet joined NATO. A demand that Finland withdraw would attempt to reverse an existing treaty relationship. Both proposals raise questions of consent, but they are not legally equivalent.
5. Why Baltic Base Restrictions Require Separate Consent
The reported restrictions on NATO military bases in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania concern a different legal relationship from Finland's membership. The three Baltic states joined NATO in 2004 and retain sovereign authority over the use of their territory, subject to their international commitments.
Any agreement governing foreign military installations would need to identify which activities were restricted and which states were undertaking the obligations. An arrangement affecting permanent bases might leave temporary deployments, exercises, and reinforcements untouched, depending on its wording.
Russia could propose reciprocal limitations on deployments or seek negotiations over arms control. It could not impose such restrictions on NATO members by agreement with governments lacking authority to bind the territorial states concerned.
5.1 Military Bases, Rotations, and Host-State Authority
Foreign military presence ordinarily depends on an accepted legal basis, including the consent of the territorial state and any applicable treaty arrangements. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania may authorize allied personnel, equipment, and facilities through their national laws and international agreements.
That authority is an aspect of state sovereignty under international law. NATO membership establishes collective-defense obligations, but it does not extinguish a member state's territorial jurisdiction or place every military facility under unrestricted control by the Alliance.
A legally precise base restriction would need to distinguish permanent installations from rotational deployments, temporary exercises, prepositioned equipment, and infrastructure intended to support reinforcement. Those arrangements can have substantially different operational effects, and a broad prohibition on military bases would not necessarily resolve them.
The North Atlantic Treaty itself does not require every member to host permanent foreign forces. Article 3 addresses the development of individual and collective defense capacity, while Article 5 concerns assistance following an armed attack. The location and organization of forces depend on additional decisions and agreements.
For the Baltic states, any binding restriction would require their participation or another valid expression of consent. A political understanding reached elsewhere could influence subsequent alliance planning, but it would not independently withdraw existing territorial permissions or amend the states' treaty rights.
5.2 The NATO–Russia Founding Act of 1997
The NATO–Russia Founding Act, signed on May 27, 1997, provides an important historical reference for the debate over allied forces in Eastern Europe. It was adopted as a political commitment at a time when NATO and Russia sought to establish a cooperative security relationship after the Cold War.
The Act stated that, in the security environment then considered current and foreseeable, NATO would carry out its collective-defense missions through interoperability, integration, and reinforcement capacity rather than additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. It also contemplated necessary infrastructure and reinforcement in specified circumstances.
That language is narrower than a general prohibition on NATO military bases. It addresses the permanent stationing of substantial combat forces within a stated security context. It does not establish an unconditional ban on every form of allied military presence, temporary deployment, or defense installation.
The Act also expressly provides that neither NATO nor Russia obtains a veto over the other's decisions through its consultation arrangements. Its provisions do not authorize Moscow to determine whether Finland can remain a NATO member or whether the Baltic states may exercise their sovereign powers.
The security environment has changed substantially since 1997, and the political significance of the Founding Act remains contested. Those developments require careful interpretation of the original commitments and subsequent conduct. They do not transform the instrument into a treaty granting Russia the right to expel NATO members or dictate another state's military arrangements.
6. What a Wider European Security Agreement Could Change
A wider European security settlement could lawfully address arms control, military transparency, deployment limits, confidence-building measures, and arrangements for avoiding dangerous incidents. States may accept reciprocal restrictions on military activities when those commitments are compatible with their other obligations.
Such an agreement would require careful treatment of participation and consent. Russia and the United States could undertake obligations governing their own forces. Finland could decide whether to accept restrictions concerning its territory. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would likewise need to consent to commitments affecting their sovereign rights.
NATO-wide arrangements would involve the Alliance's institutional procedures and the consent of its members. The North Atlantic Council operates by consensus, as explained in NATO's established decision-making procedures. An understanding reached by individual governments would not automatically constitute an Alliance decision.
Existing treaty obligations would also need to be considered. Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires its parties not to enter international engagements conflicting with that treaty. A proposed restriction affecting collective-defense arrangements would have to be examined for compatibility with the commitments already binding on the participating states.
A security settlement might take the form of a legally binding treaty, a political declaration, or a combination of instruments. Their consequences would differ. Political declarations can guide state conduct and diplomatic expectations without necessarily creating enforceable treaty obligations. Binding restrictions require sufficiently clear terms, valid consent, and any necessary domestic approval.
The reported proposals concerning Finland and the Baltic states illustrate the difficulty of negotiating a European security arrangement through a process centered on the war in Ukraine. The interests of neighboring states may be directly affected by the outcome, but that does not authorize other governments to dispose of their legal rights.
Agreement on broader security questions could influence Finland's future choices or NATO's deployment policies. It could also create opportunities for reciprocal military limitations accepted by the states concerned. Nothing in the current reporting establishes that such an arrangement has been agreed, or that Finland has accepted negotiations over its membership.
The decisive legal distinction is between negotiating possible changes and possessing authority to impose them. A settlement can create new obligations for consenting parties. It cannot, through diplomatic ambition alone, replace the constitutional and treaty procedures governing another state's alliance membership.
Conclusion
The November 13 reports concerning Finland's possible withdrawal from NATO remain disputed. Bild attributed the proposal to informal contacts around the Abu Dhabi peace process, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied that Russia had made such a demand. Finnish officials rejected the suggestion that membership could become a bargaining issue.
The uncertainty surrounding the proposal does not extend to the central treaty rule. Finland is a member of NATO under the North Atlantic Treaty. Neither Russia nor an agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States can unilaterally terminate that membership.
Finland could choose to withdraw under Article 13, subject to its constitutional procedures and the treaty's one-year notice requirement. Restrictions on allied military facilities in the Baltic states would require separate legal arrangements involving the governments whose rights and territories were affected.
European security arrangements can be negotiated and changed. Their legal foundation, however, rests on the consent of the states concerned and the continued application of existing international obligations. Russia's security preferences, whether expressed in formal proposals or informal discussions, do not confer authority over Finland's membership in NATO.
References
Agreement on Defense Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the United States of America (2023) signed 18 December 2023; entered into force 1 September 2024, Treaties and Other International Acts Series 24-901. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo248421 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (2016) Official Journal of the European Union, C 202, 7 June 2016, pp. 13–45, particularly Article 42(7). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2016/art_42/oj/eng (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Constitution of Finland (1999) Act No. 731/1999, 11 June 1999, as amended. Ministry of Justice, Finland, official English translation. Available at: https://finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/240375/mainPdf/main.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Helsinki Times (2026) ‘Finland rejects reported Russian bid to reverse its Nato membership’ [online], 13 November. Available at: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/29487-finland-rejects-reported-russian-bid-to-reverse-its-nato-membership.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Interfax (2026) ‘Песков заявил, что Россия не требовала выхода Финляндии из НАТО’ [Peskov stated that Russia had not demanded Finland’s withdrawal from NATO] [online], 13 November. Available at: https://www.interfax.ru/russia/1128830 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://api.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-BI.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Kirkkala, A. (2026) ‘Kremlin denies demanding Finland leave NATO’, Verkkouutiset [online], 13 November. Available at: https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/en/kremlin-denies-demanding-finland-leave-nato/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Kurnikov, M. and Hitzler, E. (2026) ‘Exklusiv: Russlands brutale Forderungen an Europa’, Bild [online], 13 November. Available at: https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland-und-internationales/ukraine-krieg-bild-kennt-einen-geheimen-russischen-friedensvorschlag-6af482e1db4e2fa8f6eb7a55 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, 4 April 1949; entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2034/volume-34-I-541-English.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russian Federation (1997) Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, signed at Paris, 27 May 1997. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1997/05/27/founding-act (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2023) ‘Consensus decision-making at NATO’ [online], updated 30 June. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/consensus-decision-making-at-nato (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2024) ‘Relations with Finland’ [online], updated 3 October. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/partnerships-and-cooperation/relations-with-finland (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (2010) Astana Commemorative Declaration: Towards a Security Community, SUM.DOC/1/10/Corr.1, 3 December. Available at: https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/b/5/75013.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Osborn, A. and Halpin, P. (2026) ‘Putin lets Europe join Ukraine peace talks, Zelenskiy welcomes prospect of European participation’, Reuters [online], 12 November. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-envoys-arrive-moscow-latest-round-ukrainian-peace-talks-with-putin-2026-11-12/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Rouhana, R. (2026) ‘Russia, Ukraine reach deal on prisoner swap as US says lack of trust holds back talks’, Reuters [online], 11 November. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-russia-ukraine-start-second-day-abu-dhabi-peace-talks-2026-11-11/ (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2021) Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, draft agreement, 17 December. Available at: https://augengeradeaus.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/20211217_Draft_Russia_NATO_security_guarantees.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Simsek, A. (2026) ‘Russia demands Finland leave NATO in Abu Dhabi talks: Report’, Anadolu Agency [online], 13 November. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/russia-demands-finland-leave-nato-in-abu-dhabi-talks-report/4123836 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) concluded at Vienna, 23 May 1969; entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).