The mood was better at the Munich Security Conference. People are rightly contrite because Ukraine is suffering from the slowdown in ammunition production. The G7 agreements with Kiev are better than their reputation. Five lessons from the security marathon.
The spirit of optimism was yesterday
Actually, day 2 of the Munich Security Conference was supposed to be “Crisis Saturday,” as some participants had already dubbed it in advance because of the tough topics. But now the MSC began with a “Crisis Friday” when Russian media reported the death of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny at midday. Putin’s murder machine has managed to dominate both the signature of the security agreement between Germany and Ukraine and the Munich conference on Friday.
In his speech on Saturday, Chancellor Olaf Scholz recognized “silver linings” on the horizon and tried to encourage the other European states to provide significantly higher aid to Ukraine. EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen floated the idea of an EU defense commissioner. But despite slogans of perseverance and new proposals, the normative force of the fact remained dominant in Munich: Due to a lack of ammunition, Kiev is losing ground on the front every day and – worse still – many brave fighters.
“As soon as you left the main stage level, where the smaller circles were talking unofficially, the mood was by no means rosy – not with regard to the war situation, nor with regard to political leadership, the cohesion of Europe and the role of the USA,” This is how Claudia Major, a renowned German security expert and a panelist at the MSC, perceived it.
The main reason for Kiev’s woes: The US has been unable to get its $60 billion weapons and ammunition package through Congress for months. The Europeans have failed to stimulate their own defense industry with timely orders to make up for the US gap.
A year ago in Munich no one would have expected this. Heads of state such as the British Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron from France and the American Vice President Kamala Harris were on the stage – all three strong speakers who managed to spread a spirit of optimism at the first security conference after the outbreak of the great Ukrainian war.
Together we came to the conclusion: Ukraine is not only fighting for its own survival, but also for the values and freedom of the Western democracies. The conclusion that she needed to be a reliable supporter simply had to be put into action. Only?
Giants of knowledge and dwarves of implementation
What did the Ukraine supporting states make of the realization and willingness to move forward in 2023? That was one of the questions that hovered over the conference like helicopters over the “Bayerischer Hof”, where the MSC has been taking place for decades. The Western community of states had a year to prepare itself, pool resources, order weapons and ammunition, structure aid – to unpack the “bazooka”, as Olaf Scholz might put it. But the outcome of the security conference in mid-February 2024 was sobering and familiar: the recurring thing too little, too late – too little, too late.
It was only after months that the support group decided to structure its assistance and make different capabilities the responsibility of individual states. In these “Capacity Coalitions,” Poland, for example, will coordinate support with tanks in the future, while Germany and France will jointly step on the toes of anyone who could help with air defense systems. This is starting now, but should actually have started on the Monday after the 2023 conference.
It’s complicated – and getting more complicated
The world outside Europe and the USA was discussed on several panels in Munich. In terms of perception, including to the outside world, it came under the radar to some extent. The West’s relationship with China, the war in Gaza, settler violence in the West Bank, the position of emerging countries – there seemed to be little capacity for such topics beyond the panels in view of the war in Europe. And when US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken calls for a two-state solution, it is clear from the start how Israel and the Palestinians will react: negatively.
The prospect of Kiev joining NATO was also not a central issue; there were too many questions open and extremely difficult to clarify: What territory would have to be protected? How risky is Stoltenberg’s statement that “joining NATO only after the war” with regard to the Kremlin? And could one rely on the consent of all NATO states to join Ukraine? The experience of Sweden’s accession does not indicate this.
Instead of intensively discussing NATO accession questions, reference was made to the security agreements now underway between Ukraine and the G7 states. Scholz and President Volodymyr Selenskyj only signed the German-Ukrainian agreement on Friday in Berlin. As long as NATO accession negotiations seem a long way off, the agreements should show the way there.
The G7 security agreements – better than their reputation
Do the agreements agreed with the G7 also meet the requirements in terms of content? First of all, there are expressly no guarantees, but only increased and bundled cooperation with promised financing. “This means they remain significantly below the level of protection afforded by NATO membership, but they do anchor a more binding cooperation than previous ad hoc aid,” concludes Major. They are therefore – despite justified criticism – better than their reputation.
Such agreements with economically strong nations are “well-organized, structured, reliable support below Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. For Ukraine, this carries weight.”
After the signing in Berlin, Zelensky flew to Paris for the French agreement; the British have already signed. Lots of individual events that could have been bundled together in a symbolic way in Munich. “Especially in view of the difficult situation at the front and the blockade in the US Congress, many had hoped that Sunak, Macron, Scholz and the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk would take to the stage in Munich to attract the public and show that we Europeans are now doing this together,” says Major. “You missed an opportunity.”
Cool – bold – Kallas
Sunak and Macron didn’t even arrive. In her speech, US Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized the strength of the transatlantic partnership and assured that Ukraine would receive all military support. But what is such a promise worth if the White House is already unable to act due to the Republican blockade on aid to Ukraine? “All military support” is currently not a single dollar.
So when the states that are otherwise in the spotlight in Munich don’t deliver, it sharpens the focus on the newcomers. Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s head of government, has been on the Russian wanted list (“hostile acts”) not only since last week. It is also pushing European partners to be more bold, and its defense spending is at three percent of Estonia’s GDP.
At the Munich panel on NATO policy, Kallas explained on the subject of ammunition production that Estonia has a very good tech sector. “Why don’t we bring this together to make progress,” the premier asked. “To produce not what existed in the 20th century, but what corresponds to the 21st century.”
Many people within the EU would like to see fewer doubters and more enablers, even if not everything the Estonian devises works. Of the one million rounds of ammunition that were supposed to be produced within a year, only a third will be produced on time. But now, as we hear, the Union is looking all over the world for artillery shells – certainly also fueled by Kallas’ bold initiative.
Czech President Petr Pavel’s idea is also to Kallas’ liking: He suggests that the EU buys ammunition from third countries to supply it to Ukraine. According to the Estonian, this could be financed through EU bonds, i.e. joint debts. Faced with skepticism from Germany, she asks: “What is the alternative?”