Each day we learn that the leaders of the “free world” lag behind us. Relying on them to give us peace and stability has its doubts. The annual Munich Security Conference, a gathering of Western world’s movers and shakers, tells us why we have this insecure world.
The Conference reached deep into the nitty gritty that determines European security, stability, and prosperity.
Topics addressed at the MSC 2026 will include European security and defense, the future of the transatlantic relationship, the revitalization of multilateralism, competing visions of the global order, regional conflicts, and the security implications of technological advances, to name a few.
Prediction — all academic talk and no anticipated action.
From my perspective, there were Illogical pronouncements on several issues, which have no historical foundation or present reality, which tells me we should be troubled. The issues are:
(1) The need for Europe to rearm
(2) The Russian threat
(3) Destruction of the international order
(4) China threatening regional security.
The need for Europe to rearm
Europe resolved its security problems with defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and establishment of a common market and the European Union after World War II. Pooling their arms into NATO satisfied defensive arrangements against a possible threat from the Soviet Union. That possible threat no longer exists, and the need for NATO, with or without the United States, seems superfluous. Who is going to attack a European nation? Are other European nations willing to enter the conflict under a unified command?
The answer to the first question is that Europeans openly state that Russia exhibits the tendency and capability to commit aggression against European states. No other state is mentioned. Place that threat aside and assume, as will be explained in a subsequent paragraph, the threat is exaggerated and can be resolved by other than military means, and Europe has no reason to rearm; just the opposite, rearming returns to the atmosphere prior to formation of the European Union and its concept of settling arguments peacefully. Let’s be honest; even if there are grave disputes between nations in the unified command, the disputes will be settled by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom and the smaller nations will be forced to follow. The unified military is the same as the alliances made before World Wars I and II, troubling alliances that never stopped conflict and brought nations into local wars.
The war in Ukraine shows how willing Europeans will be willing to sacrifice lives to protect others. Zero! Their nations have common economic, legal, and social interests; culturally and nationally they remain different. The European Union is not a strong United States, a wavering United Kingdom, or a struggling Spanish kingdom; it consists of individual countries, which have bloodlines confined within borders and the populations are not motivated to shed blood beyond their borders.
Kudos to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who gave a coherent, passionate, and credible speech at the conference. Problems with his pronouncements.
MUNICH, Feb 13 (Reuters) – German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Friday that Berlin had begun talks with France about a European nuclear deterrent, while President Emmanuel Macron said Europe had to become a geopolitical power given the Russian threat would not disappear.
It is doubtful that France will permit its nuclear capability to be controlled by those who do not already have nuclear capability. Is expanding nuclear weapons the way to go? Won’t the contenders also expand? Here we go again, off to the races, offering deterrence and inviting increased mutual destruction. Ask again, “putting Russia aside, whom does Europe fear?’
Turkey and Greece might come to blows over Cyprus. Not a major shaking of the European theater. If it ever happens, they’ll settle scores, similar to the manner in which Azerbaijan and Armenia settled their dispute , and an aggressive settlement in which nobody intervened.
One hostile nation, who is already disturbing European sleep is NATO ally, United States of America. Maybe, Chancellor Merz had the USA in mind when he proposed the “European deterrent,” and not an expanded NATO deterrent. Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine and America’s Manifest destiny, his calm and calculated seizure of Venezuela, and proposal to obtain Greenland have shocked European leaders. It’s real and no increase in arms and nuclear weapons can prevent the reality. Military force is not an option, only diplomatic and economic forces can prevent the action.
In conclusion, if Europe has no danger of facing aggression or can never acquire the means and will to combat some minor intrusions, why arm and seek a European nuclear deterrent? French President Emmanuel Macron said, “Europe had to become a geopolitical power given the Russian threat would not disappear.” Easily resolved. Give the “Russian threat” a disappearance act.
The Russian threat
From Vladimir Putin’s perspective, the Maidan protest was a coup and not a revolution. The Russian president was convinced the Obama administration played a decisive role in overthrowing President Yanukovych, Russia’s Ukrainian partner. Fearful of losing Crimea as a Black Sea naval base, and ever vigilant to protecting his nation’s interests, Putin used the provocation to return Crimea to the Russian nation, arguing that Crimea became attached to the Ukraine Republic for expediency during Khrushchev’s tenure and was always considered “Russian territory.”
After the Ukrainian government expressed a hostile attitude toward Russia, and western nations seemed to approve the stance, could Russia be expected to act differently? The usual suspects forced the Russians to either whimper or send troops to Crimea. Look at it another way. Moscow did not challenge the status of Crimea until a government unfriendly to Russia took power in Ukraine. Political analysis precedes political action. Western nations acted before thinking and engineered fear to the Bear, rather than making sure the new government did not upset Moscow.
Threatening to use Ukraine as a NATO military base and establishing ballistic missile bases close to the Russian border at its border made Putin go ballistic. The U.S. thought they had a red light to stop Russian expansion and, instead, gave the Russians a green light to expand. The U.S. engineered instability in the region for its advantage and pushed Russia to stabilize the region to its advantage.
During December 2021, Russia offered a list of security guarantees it deemed necessary to lessen tensions and resolve its arguments with Ukraine. These guarantees included (1) No invitation for Ukraine to join NATO; (2) Removal of NATO troops and weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997 — Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan nations. Note that this did not mean that these countries must withdraw from NATO; (3) No further NATO expansion; (4) No NATO drills in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, or in Caucasus countries such as Georgia, or in Central Asia without Russian agreement.
Putin’s request for security guarantees and his reaction to lack of guarantees were not without precedent. During the last decades U.S. military has either invaded, tried to obtain regime change, or enabled regime change in Venezuela, Cuba, Dominica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Dominican Republic, Somalia, and Sudan. On a larger and more horrific scale, U.S. forces have attacked North Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All these military actions were done to protect Uncle Sam’s security.
Why is Europe concerned with Russia? Despite the accusations and shrill language, President Putin has not sent the Russian military, except for Syria and some minor African excursions, into full scale operations away from its borders, has not interfered with other nations, has not gathered a fleet to protect world resources for itself, and has not manipulated the international order. The only military actions, and very brief, has been to assist South Ossetia and Abkhazia to separate from Georgia. Russian troops captured Georgia, could have stayed, and quickly left. Does that indicate expansion or intent to reclaim the Soviet Union?
Put it all together — bashing of Putin, NATO expansion, missile bases close to Russia, and constant support for antagonists to Russia — and it is plausible to conclude that below the protests in Ukraine lies instigation from western nations.
Ukraine has a choice of allowing Russia to obtain the remaining sliver of the Donbass and incorporate all the Donbass into the Russian Federation without additional Ukrainian casualties or having its army struggle to retain the sliver and suffer casualties in a losing battle. President Macron, which do you recommend?
Russia is not Europe’s enemy. Why would it be? It is a European nation that serves Europe with energy resources and desires trade with adjoining nations. As all nations, Russia will react to security threats, violations of its sovereignty and endangerment of its people. Treat Russia with respect, acknowledge its security interests, do not violate its sovereignty. or endanger its people and the Bear will behave as if in hibernation.
Destruction of the international order
“As imperfect as it was even in its best days,” the global order that “rested on rights and rules” is gone, Merz said in his keynote speech on February 13. “We have crossed the threshold into an era that is once again openly characterized by power and great power politics.”
Global order or global disorder? Can we characterize decades of international wars, civil wars, insurrections, mass migrations, and a couple of genocides as “global order” that rested on rights and rules? Whose rights and whose rules?
Do we know of any lesser country who could contend with the great powers — United States, France, and Great Britain? Did these great powers do anything for others that did not better themselves? Other than great power politics, what politics have we had? Merz has it backwards. We are emerging from an era of global disorder, which rested on rules made by a few to guarantee their rights and distribute rights to others as they preferred. BRICS, an international organization composed of ten countries —Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates — is a stumbling attempt to create an alternative world order that shields itself from the global disorder and is “rested on rights and rules” and not on “great power politics.” Merz may find Europe going alone, which it can do, or joining the BRICS, not as a formal member but as an associate member. The BRICS and European Union holding hands and assisting each other might finally establish an orderly world.
China threatening regional security
The Executive Summary of the Munich Security Report 2026 stated, “An ever more powerful China is making a forceful bid for regional dominance, with provocations and coercion that threaten regional stability.” Questions.
(1) What part does China’s “bid for regional dominance” play in European security?
(2) Doesn’t China already have regional dominance?
(3) What are the provocations and coercion that threaten regional stability?
Every region has its problems and instabilities. Other than the Korean peninsula, some friction between Thailand and Cambodia, and several states with severe internal problems, none of which are related to China, East Asia is relatively stable. China has arguments with Japan, Australia, India, Taiwan, and contenders for uninhabited China Sea shifting sand islands. Maybe a nation feels a tremor of instability due to the argument; the region, as a region, exhibits no care. The Executive Summary of the Munich Security Report 2026 could have more appropriately stated, “China has achieved regional dominance, and its internal stability is a model for the Munich Security Conference to study.”
Conclusion
End with the beginning.
Each day we learn that the leaders of the “free world” lag behind us. Relying on them to give us peace and stability has its doubts. The annual Munich Security Conference, a gathering of Western world’s movers and shakers, tells us why we have this insecure world.
The post The Insecurity of the Munich Security Conference appeared first on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Dan Lieberman.