“To the Brink — and Back”

Recently, there have been qualitative negative changes in the entire system of international relations that have put the world in front of the real threat of global and regional wars, including with nuclear weapons. The statement of this fact became the main idea of the 54th Munich Security Conference which took place from 16 to 18 February 2018 — the most authoritative forum on world security issues.

According to the common vision of the participants of the event, this was first of all due to: sharpening of the relations between the United States and the DPRK through Pyongyang’s creation of nuclear weapons and means for their delivery; intensification of the confrontation between the West and Russia to the level of another “cold war”; raising the conflict potential of the Middle East, which has already overgrown the purely regional scale and is becoming of global significance. At the same time, there was an increase in threats of international terrorism and transformation of the cyber space into a new arena of global wars.

In the eyes of international experts, such threats are critical in nature and require the world community to focus on their preventing. It was also recognized that it is virtually impossible to solve this problem through the existing mechanisms of the world collective security. The reason for this is the fundamental contradictions between the leading players in the political game, both in the world arena and in conflict regions. Moreover, those disagreements between traditional partners and allies, in particular the United States and Europe, are growing.

An indication of such a situation was the tough discussion of the parties at the Munich Conference, which was accompanied by mutual allegations and threats, including with the possibility of sanctions and force against each other. Proceeding from this, were voiced pessimistic assessments of further development of the situation in the world, which will become more and more controversial in content.

In the given context, the participants of the Conference paid special attention to the Ukrainian issue as one of the main factors influencing the relations between the West and Russia. Thus, Western countries and international organizations confirmed their negative perceptions of Moscow’s policy as the main source of threats to stability in the world. In view of this, intentions were announced to continue to exert pressure on the RF to “make Russia pay a higher price than the profit it hopes to get”. Within the framework of such plans, the emphasis was placed on “bringing Russian oligarchs to responsibility for the Putin regime’s actions”.

All this once again proved the Kremlin’s groundless hopes for reaching a compromise with the West, and this causes an increasingly nervous reaction of the Russian side. For example, on the one hand, at the Conference, Russian politicians tried to assure the United States, NATO and the EU of the need to resume cooperation with Russia, and on the other hand, they moved to demonstrating the threat of “the possibility of further spread of conflicts in Europe”.

In addition, the Munich Conference became a place of “synchronization of watches” regarding the prospects of deploying a peacekeeping mission in the Donbas. The position of Ukraine on this issue was supported by the majority of the Forum’s participants, with the exception of Russia, which did not allow for the adoption of any concrete decisions.

Despite this, the Munich Security Conference as a whole confirmed the tendency of the world community’s moving from high-profile and indicative statements about the problems around Ukraine to planning actions for their real implementation. Such changes not only do not reduce the world community’s attention to Ukraine, as Russia and its Ukrainian satellites argue, but on the contrary — they increase it, translating into practical actions.

The 54th Munich Security Conference 2018 took place from 16 to 18 February 2018

In total, the Conference was attended by about 500 world-class politicians, including UN Secretary General A. Guterres, NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg, President of the European Commission J.-C. Juncker, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom T. May, Ukrainian President P. Poroshenko, Austrian Chancellor S. Kurz, Prime Minister of Israel B. Netanyahu, Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of China Fu Ying, as well as ministers of defence and foreign affairs and representatives of the USA, Russia, Germany, France and other countries.

Given the growing differences in US-European views on transatlantic security issues, this time the US representation at the Conference was downgraded to the level of former Vice President J. Biden and representatives of the US Congress. Besides, unlike in previous years, the Federal Chancellor of Germany, A. Merkel, was not involved in the event, being busy with the formation of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. Despite this, the Conference was authoritative and important in terms of defining global security issues.


The central event of the Forum was the speech by Chairman of the Munich Security Conference W. Ischinger, who voiced the main theses of his report entitled “To the Brink — and Back?” (it was published before the Conference). On the whole, the document provides a fairly adequate assessment of the world’s situation as a continuation of the trends that were identified in Munich last year. However, some of the provisions of the report, in particular regarding the United States, were somewhat biased, reflecting Europe’s attitude to this issue.

Chairman of the Munich Security Conference W. Ischinger Munich Security Report 2018

Thus, in W. Ischinger’s report and speech the emphasis was placed on the destruction of the international order, which increases the threat of wars and armed conflicts. First of all, a possibility of a nuclear war between the United States and the DPRK, a probability of an accidental collision between NATO and Russia in Europe, as well as a danger of an expansion the armed confrontation in the Middle East.

Based on this, W. Ischinger criticized the USA’s position on international security. According to him, the United States has distanced itself from the role of the global leader, which has led to undermining global stability in the world. In this context, he stressed the decrease in the USA’s attention to the development of regional and regional institutions, which themselves establish rules of international relations.

In view of the above-mentioned, W. Ischinger’s report emphasizes the need to unite the efforts of the EU countries to defend European security themselves. Among the main ways to resolve this issue are: creation of European Army, consolidation of the European defence industry and increasing defence spending.

Besides, the report mentions a number of other international issues which increase the risks of conflicts and require special attention, including the proliferation of missile and nuclear technologies, global climate change and the growing mass migration.

W. Ischinger was more open in his media interview on the eve of the Munich Conference. Thus, he directly called Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine one of the greatest threats to international security, and also pointed out the danger of uncertainty about the West’s behavior model in regard to Putin’s regime.

The report by W. Ischinger set the tone for the speeches of other participants of the Conference, who revealed and supplemented its provisions.


UN Secretary General A. GuterresThus, United Nations Secretary General A. Guterres focused on the reality of the threat of a nuclear conflict in the Asia-Pacific region due to North Korea’s activity to create missile and nuclear weapons. At this, given Pyongyang’s refusal to stop such actions, he called for unconditional implementation by all countries of United Nations of sanctions against the DPRK. At the same time, A. Guterres spoke in favour of peaceful settlement of the situation around North Korea and stressed possible catastrophic consequences of the use of military force against it.

In addition, the UN Secretary General pointed out that there are significant problems in the Middle East, which look like a “Gordian knot”. As the main such problems were mentioned the “break lines” between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as between Sunnis and Shiites. According to A. Guterres, all this makes the Middle East one more source of tension and conflicts in the world.


Former US Vice President J. BidenAgainst this background, fundamentally different was the speech by the former US Vice President J. Biden, who directly accused Russia of violating the entire system of global stability in the world and attempts to undermine Western democracy. In this regard, the reason for Moscow’s turning to an aggressive foreign policy, he called “V. Putin’s regime’s attempts “to project an aura of invincibility — one that masks just how shallow the roots of its public support are at home”.

Given the dangerous and threatening nature of Moscow’s actions, J. Biden called on Western countries not to sit on their hands, but to concentrate efforts on strengthening the liberal international order, which would guarantee security in the world. As pointed out by J. Biden, the West should make Russia pay for its actions, including within the framework of targeted sanctions against Putin’s environment. At the same time, the American politician did not rule out the possibility of cooperation with Russia “on critical issues like strategic stability”.


NATO Secretary General J. StoltenbergNATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg also pointed out the increase in the level of nuclear threats. First of all, he mentioned the creation of nuclear weapons by North Korea, the build-up of China’s nuclear arsenal, and Russia’s violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty; was signed between the USA and the USSR in 1987). With this in mind, NATO Secretary General supported the need to intensify the pressure on the DPRK and called on Russia to be transparent in the implementation of the INF Treaty.

These circumstances also caused J. Stoltenberg’s position on NATO’s nuclear potential. According to him, the North Atlantic Alliance stands for nuclear disarmament in the world, but will remain a nuclear alliance because of Russia, China and the DPRK.

Besides, J. Stoltenberg acknowledged the fact that the NATO-Russia relationship has got exacerbated to the level of the “cold war”. That is why he called the containment of Russia and counteracting its interference with political processes in the countries of NATO and the EU one of the main tasks of the Alliance. J. Stoltenberg also advocated the preservation of NATO’s core functions of protecting Europe. According to his assessment, the EU’s defence efforts strengthen the European pillar within NATO and contribute to the distribution of costs to ensure the security of the region. However, Europe does not have sufficient capabilities of guaranteeing its security independently. Moreover, after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, 80 % of the collective defence spending is covered by NATO countries that are not members of the European Union.

Touching upon the Ukrainian issue, J. Stoltenberg supported Ukraine’s position on the need to deploy a UN peacekeeping mission throughout the conflict zone in the Donbas, including on the Ukrainian-Russian border.


Representatives from leading NATO member states agreed with J. Stoltenberg’s assessment of threats to European security. At the same time, different views were expressed on the role of the Alliance and the EU in ensuring Europe’s security. For example, the German Defence Minister U. von der Lien and Minister of the Armed Forces of France F. Parly advocated for reforming and strengthening the European Union’s defence policy. At this, such actions were necessitated by Russia’s turning to aggressive foreign policy, including its armed aggression against Ukraine, which marked the beginning of events that changed the world. At this, Defence Ministers of Germany and France admitted that Russia does not comply with the Minsk Agreements, and also favored the continuation of sanctions against it.


RF Foreign Minister S. LavrovLike other international events, Russia tried to use the Munich Conference to justify its policies, attempts to establish relations with the West, and also to discredit Ukraine and to shift onto our country the responsibility for the armed conflict in the Donbas.

Thus, during his speech at the Conference, RF Foreign Minister S. Lavrov emphasized the EU’s insolvency to find a “golden mean” in relations with Russia. In connection with the afore-mentioned, he accused the EU leadership of humiliating Russia, forcing it to accept Western standards, and refusing to cooperate with it.

Despite the obvious facts, S. Lavrov made another attempt to prove the irrationality of the “myth about alleged omnipotent Russian threat” to the Western world. At this, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation tried to persuade the participants of the Conference that European countries’ “feel uncomfortable about the abnormal situation in the EU–Russia relations”.

Besides, S. Lavrov again accused the Ukrainian leadership of “carrying out anti-Russian policy”, “consistently sabotaging the Minsk Agreements”, “promoting the spread of Nazism and nationalism”, and “harassing the rights of ethnic minorities” through “Ukrainization of all spheres of life” and “prohibition of unwanted media”. Based on such allegations, he compared Ukraine to Hitler’s Germany and called on the West to cease its support to the Ukrainian authorities.

According to the Russian Foreign Minister, the EU’s “reliance on pressure have not made Europe a safer place. On the contrary, the conflict potential has grown visibly, and the number of problems and crises is growing in Europe and around it”.

According to political observers (including Russian ones), S. Lavrov’s speech was frankly nervous, which was the consequence of the Kremlin’s understanding of the complexity of Russia’s position, in which it found itself as a result of its confrontation with the United States and Europe. Under such circumstances, Moscow actually resorts to direct threats to the Western world, since it has no chance to influence it in any other way.


The participants of the Conference focused on discussing the situation in the Middle East. At this, there was an increase in disagreements on this issue, both between the leading countries of the world and the countries of the region.

In particular, representatives of the USA were actually against nuclear agreement with Iran, which provide for the lifting of United Nations sanctions in exchange for the termination of the missile and nuclear program. In turn, this caused a negative reaction of both, Iran itself, and of Russia and a of number of other countries. Besides, the United States and Russia expressed different views on how to resolve the situation around Syria.

Prime Minister of Israel B. Netanyahu Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran M. J. Zarif Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia A. al-Jubeir

An even more heated debate took place at the level of the countries of the Middle East. In the speeches by the Prime Minister of Israel B. Netanyahu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran M. J. Zarif and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia A. al-Jubeir, dominated mutual accusations, including threatening with military force.


The Munich Conference gave Ukraine the opportunity to once again bring its position in confrontation with Russia to the world community. At this, was disclosed the true essence of Moscow’s “hybrid” war against our state, which has already turned into a “hybrid” war against the entire civilized world.

As part of the discussion on the situation around Ukraine, including during the speeches of the participants of the Conference and bilateral and multilateral meetings, the main topics were the issue of assisting our country and the prospects for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission in the Donbas.

For example, President of the European Commission J.-C. Juncker expressed the EU’s readiness to intensify comprehensive support to Ukraine in system reforms and implementing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.

In turn, former NATO Secretary General, A. Rasmussen, put forward a plan to address this issue, which involves sending up to 24 thousand peacekeepers and policemen to Ukraine with functions of control over the entire conflict zone, including the Ukrainian-Russian border. According to the plan, non-NATO countries with peacekeeping experience should join the mission. Participation in the mission of Russia, as the actual party to the conflict, is excluded. Besides, it is proposed to create a temporary UN administration to resolve election issues.

Former NATO Secretary General A. Rasmussen A. Rasmussen's plan of the UN mission deployment in the Donbas

A. Rasmussen’s initiative was supported by the majority of the participants of the Conference. In particular, Sweden agreed to head the mission and take part in its work. Finland, the Czech Republic, Belarus and a number of other countries also expressed their willingness to send their peacekeeping contingents to the conflict zone in the Donbas.

In contrast, Russia once again demonstrated the duality of its positions with regard to the principles of peacekeeping in the Donbas. Thus, S. Lavrov and other Russian representatives allowed the sending of peacekeepers to the Donbas but presented all this as Putin’s personal initiative. At the same time, they confirmed Moscow’s demand to coordinate this issue with the so called “DPR” and “LPR”, to limit the Mission’s functions to protecting the OSCE observers, and to phase the deployment based on the political steps taken by Ukraine to resolve the conflict.

To justify such an approach, reference was made to the provisions of the Minsk Agreements, which allegedly do not provide for the deployment of a full-fledged peacekeeping mission in the Donbas. In general, such a position has shown Moscow’s plans to keep control over the occupied territories of Ukraine, to impose Russia’s vision of the Minsk Agreements on our country and, at the same time, to assure the world of the Kremlin’s “peaceful” policy.

In fact, such a position of Moscow did not allow to reach an agreement on the deployment of the UN mission in the Donbas. At the same time, the meeting in the “Normandy” format was disrupted. Thus, the ground remains for the continuation of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine, as well as for the further strengthening of the confrontation between Russia and the West over the Ukrainian issue.


Схожі публікації