While Putin threatens, desperation and cover in Europe

MUNICH – Western leaders have met in Munich for the last three days, Mr. President Vladimir Putin He sent them a message:

Nothing they have done so far – sanctions, condemnations, containment attempts – could alter their intentions to alter the current world order.

Russia has made its first major advance into Ukraine in nearly a year, capturing the ruined city Avdiivka, with an enormous human cost for both sides; The corpses strewn across the streets are perhaps a warning of a new direction in this two-year war.

The suspicious death of Alexei Navalny in a remote Arctic prison made it even clearer that Putin will not tolerate dissent as the election approaches.

And the American discovery, revealed in recent days, that Putin may be intending to place a nuclear weapon in space – a bomb designed to destroy the connective tissue of global communications if Putin is pushed too far – was a powerful reminder of his ability to respond to his adversaries with the asymmetric weapons that remain a key source of his power.

In Munich the atmosphere was one of anxiety and unease, as leaders faced clashes they had not anticipated.

The warnings about Putin’s possible next moves were mixed with the growing concern Europe might soon see abandoned by the United States, the only power that has been at the center of its own defense strategy for 75 years.

Barely an hour passed in the Munich Security Conference in which the conversation did not focus on whether Congress would find a way to fund new weapons for Ukraine and, if so, how long the Ukrainians could hold out.

And although the name of Donald Trump just mentioned, the prospect of whether he would make good on his threats to withdraw from NATO and let Russia “he did what he wanted“With the allies he felt that planning much of the dialogue was not sufficient.

However, European leaders also seemed to perceive how slowly they had reacted to the new realities.

Deadlines

European plans to rebuild its forces for a new era of confrontation are going in the right direction, leader after leader insisted, but added that it will take time. five years or again, time they may not have if Russia overwhelms Ukraine and Trump undermines the alliance.

The bitterness of the atmosphere contrasts sharply with that of just a year ago, when many of the same participants – intelligence chiefs and diplomats, oligarchs and analysts – thought Russia might be on the verge of a crisis strategic defeat in Ukraine.

There was talk of how many months it would take to return the Russians to the borders that existed before their invasion on February 24, 2022.

Now that optimism seems early at best, slightly illusory at worst.

Nikolai DenkovBulgarian Prime Minister, argued that Europeans should draw three lessons from the cascade of problems.

The war in Ukraine was not just about the gray zones between Europe and Russia, he argued, but “whether the democratic world we care about can be defeated, and this is now well understood in Europe.”

Second, European nations have realized that they must join forces in military, not just economic, efforts to build their own deterrence, he said.

And third, they had to separate Ukraine’s urgent needs for ammunition and air defense from long-term strategic objectives.

But given the imperialist rhetoric of Russian leaders, Denkov said, “long term in this case means three to five years and at most ten years: it’s really urgent.”

American officials relied on the well-known assurance that Washington’s leadership and commitment would remain unchanged.

But they failed to outline an action plan for Ukraine as Congress continued to withhold weapons funding, and they struggled to explain how they would achieve sustainable peace after the war between Israel and Hamas.

At the Bayerischer Hof Hotel, the scene of the conference where Putin warned in 2007 that NATO’s eastward expansion posed a threat to Russia, Navalny’s widow She made an emotional appearance Thursday hours after her husband’s death, reminding attendees that Putin would “take responsibility.”

But there was little talk of what the West might do: Almost all possible sanctions have already been imposed, and it was unclear whether the United States and the Europeans would be moved to embargo the next country. 300 billion dollars about assets that Russia carelessly left abroad before the invasion.

When a senior American official was asked how the United States would keep the president’s promise Joe Biden of “devastating consequences” for Russia if Navalny died in prison – a statement made in Putin’s presence at a meeting in Geneva – the official shrugged.

Some attendees found the commitments made by the leaders who showed up uninspiring, said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Italian Institute for International Affairs.

“Kamala Harris empty, Scholz soft, Zelenskyy tired,” he said, referring to the vice president of the United States, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“So many words, no concrete commitment.”

“I feel overwhelmed and a little disappointed” by the debate here, said Steven Sokol, president of the American Council on Germany.

“There has been a lack of urgency and clarity on the way forward, and I have not seen a strong demonstration of European solidarity.”

He and others noted that the French president, Emmanuel MacronIt didn’t help.

The most striking aspect of the talks with Russia was the widespread recognition that the modernization plans Europe’s military plans, first announced nearly two decades ago, were moving too slowly to address the threat now posed by Russia.

“European defense was once a possibility, but now it is a necessity,” said Claudio Graziano, a retired Italian general and former president of the European Union Military Committee.

But saying the right words is not the same as doing what they ask.”

Scenario

The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, along with a number of defense and intelligence officials, have repeatedly referred to recent intelligence findings that, within three to five years, Putin may attempt to test NATO’s credibility by attacking one of its neighboring countries. Russia, most likely a small Baltic nation.

But the warning does not appear to have triggered an urgent debate about how to prepare for this possibility.

The conference celebrated the fact that two-thirds of the alliance’s members have achieved their goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, compared to just a handful of countries a decade ago.

But some have acknowledged that this goal has been achieved out of phase, and they quickly talked about the political obstacles to more spending.

Even Stoltenberg warned that Europe remains dependent on the United States and its nuclear umbrella, and that other NATO countries would not be able to cover the deficit if the United States continued to withhold military aid to Ukraine.

But there is the prospect of diminished American commitment to NATO as the United States turns to other challenges China or the Middle Eastthey concentrated their minds.

“We must do more” in Europe, the German defense minister told the conference. Boris Pistorio.

But when asked whether his country’s military spending should approach 4% of German economic output, he was reluctant to commit, given that this is the first year in decades that Berlin will spend NATO’s 2% target for the army.

“We could reach 3% or even 3.5%,” he finally said.

“It depends on what’s going on in the world.” When his boss Scholz took the stage he said that “we Europeans must do much more for our security, now and in the future”, but he stayed away from concrete details.

He said he is “urgently campaigning” in other European capitals to increase military spending.

But the fundamental disconnect was still visible: when Europeans thought Russia would integrate into European institutions, they stopped planning and spending in case they were wrong. And when Russia’s attitude changed, they did not react.

When Europeans thought Russia would integrate into European institutions, they stopped planning and spending in case they were wrong.

And when Russia’s attitude changed, they did not react.

“This is 30 years of underinvestment coming home to roost,” said François Heisbourg, a French defense analyst, who called it “les trente paresseuses” — the 30 lazy yearss of post-Cold War peace dividends, in contrast to the 30 glorious years that followed World War II.

Kaja KallasEstonian Prime Minister, said that Europe must strengthen its defenses “because what really provokes an aggressor is weakness”.

Putin could therefore risk attacking a country like his in an attempt to fracture NATO.

“But if we do more for our defense, it will act as a deterrent.

The people around Putin would say you can’t win. “Don’t accept it.”

What is important for Europeans to remember is that this hot war in Ukraine is close and could spread quickly, Kallas said.

“So if you think you’re far away, you’re not far away. It can go very, very fast.”

Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine’s foreign minister, was more forceful.

“I think our friends and partners have been too slow to wake up to their own defense industries,” he said.

“And we will pay with our lives through 2024 to give their defense industries time to ramp up production.”

c.2024 The New York Times Company