On Monday, the Valdai Discussion Club held a discussion of the results of the Munich Security Conference, which took place on February 17-19. Valdai Club Research Director Fyodor Lukyanov and President of the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations Alexander Dynkin shared their impressions of the conference.
Opening the discussion, Lukyanov noted that this year, the atmosphere was noticeably different. He said that it gave the impression of “a meeting of people who are not sure what will happen next”, and that the main factor of such insecurity was the United States. The Munich Conference became a sort of foreign policy debut for Donald Trump’s administration, but the American delegation’s speeches did not qualm the Europeans’ concerns.
According to Lukyanov, US Vice President Pence and Secretary of Defense Mattis said everything that the audience expected to hear, assuring Europeans that the US will remain faithful to its alliance obligations and that Europe is not under threat, but this did not cause the effect that was expected.
“Because it was not US President Donald Trump saying this, but instead, others were saying it on his behalf, everyone had suspicions that this is not the true position of the US administration, but instead an attempt to quell worries,” Lukyanov said.
Alexander Dynkin talked about his impressions from Michael Pence’s speech. He noted that Pence never mentioned the European Union, which perturbed the Europeans. The leitmotif of his speech was the conviction that peace can only be built from the position of strength.
“It was unclear, what this was, Trump’s foreign policy message or Pence improvising. However, he tried to create the impression that it was the first,” Dynkin said.
Dynkin also noted that the participants’ speeches reflected a high level of international uncertainty and hope that Americans can help lower it. However, he believes that the US has no power over this, as this uncertainty is the result of movement from a unipolar world to a polycentric one.
“World history is no longer being made within the bounds of Christian civilization,” Dynkin said, citing data from Angela Merkel’s speech, which stated that China’s GDP grew 20 times in the past 25 years, compared to 2-3 times for the US and Europe. Considering this, world order can no longer be built based on values and it is necessary to think about the reconciliation of competing interests.
Lukyanov noted that evidence to the change in participants’ attitude was the questions made, that were inconceivable in previous years, for example, whether European integration is a condition of success for a country. There were also new characters, such as UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, whose speech was out of tune with all principles of serious discussion, he said. For example, Johnson called the UK’s departure from the EU “liberation,” causing indignation among representatives of EU countries.
Within the context of US-EU relations, the greatest attention was given to the focus of sharing the burden of providing for Europe’s security. All representatives of the US said that Europe should play a financial role in supporting its security, Lukyanov noted. Representatives of the EU responded that the stability of the transatlantic community is provided for with not only defense spending, but also the reception of refugees from the Middle East, democracy promotion, environmental protection and other factors. However, this approach did not impress the Americans, Lukyanov noted.
According to Lukyanov, this year the topic of Russia was discussed less than before, and almost exclusively within the context of a supposed interference in the elections of Western countries. At the same time, the arguments that promoted the idea that Russia carries out such interference appeared unconvincing.
“Everyone was perplexed by the lack of confidence that the people who are pushing back against Russia exuded. It turns out that all elections are now under threat because Russian hackers can do anything,” he said.
The topic of Russia was also raised in connection with the Donbass conflict. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who took part in the conference, tried to attract attention to the topic of “Russian aggression,” but this did not play well with the public.
“It was noticeable that Poroshenko was trying as hard as he could, the speech that was prepared was very strong, with allusions to the [1938] Munich Agreement, to the appeasement of the aggressor, but the reaction to his speech was extremely lukewarm,” Lukyanov said.
Commenting on the suggestion from the Mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, of including the US within the Normandy Format, Dynkin noted that in this case, if the Trump Administration conducts a constructive policy, it could be a good idea, as Germany and France have no capability to pressure Kiev.
“Poroshenko is conducting a very thought through policy, increasing tensions in Donbass instead of engaging in reforms and fighting corruption. It’s possible that he has no other choice,” Dynkin said.
Another important topic of discussion at the conference was Iran. According to Lukyanov, the conference was dominated by anti-Iranian attitudes. US Senator Lindsey Graham called Iran a chief sponsor of terrorism and said that Tehran “must pay for everything else,” meaning that the problem of the Iranian nuclear problem is resolved, but this does not exhaust the list of Western demands from Iran. Foreign Ministers of Israel and Saudi Arabia echoed his words, and the latter’s speech was almost exclusively dedicated to Iran.
Such militant rhetoric is a great gift to Iranian conservatives in the run-up to the elections.
“A man worse than Ahmadinejad could come to power. From the point of view of politics, this is very dangerous and unprofessional,” Dynkin said.
Concluding the discussion, Dynkin recalled the Munich Speech of Vladimir Putin, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cited in his address. In 2007, Putin, he said, drew two “red lines” for Russia, which were Georgia and Ukraine.
“Western political circles did not perceive that ‘red lines’ were being named. He said the same thing at the [NATO] summit in Bucharest [in 2008]. He was not heard again and the unbounded expansion of NATO continued. Two conflicts happened because Putin was not heard,” Dynkin noted.
In 2007, Putin’s words were perceived as a throwback to the Cold War, but they turned out to be a description of looming processes in global politics, Lukyanov added.
“In essence, what Putin talked about then is now being discussed as a given. A lot of what he said is being acknowledged, but without recognizing authorship,” Lukyanov concluded.
