Brief Reflection on the Munich Security Conference (MSC)
Munich Security Conference (MSC) |
This year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC) was the most visible and consequential in years, and established a new baseline for transatlantic relations that is both promising but leaves major unanswered questions.
NATO remains a security alliance with an evolving division of labor. The US will provide nuclear and maritime security while Europe must step up on territorial defense. At the same time, Greenland lingers as an internal flashpoint, and Europe’s internal nuclear guarantees are still being negotiated.
I was unconvinced by European resolve to pursue significant rearmament in a meaningful timeframe. A parade of military officers publicly professed commitment to ramped up indigenous capabilities and rapid procurement reforms, but privately confessed to the weight of bureaucratic inertia.
Even more concerning is the overall lack of a coherent Western military strategy in Ukraine. The obsession with drone technology reminds of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and “virtual war” fads that similarly failed to answer the fundamental question of holding the territory. On the present trajectory, the stalemate will persist with only a climbing body count to show for it. Munich was a poignant if ironic location to remind Europeans of my argument in The National Interest from March 2022: “Settlement is not Appeasement”.
This incoherence will be further laid bare by the clear diplomatic rift over Russia policy. While Europeans double-down on a military strategy that cannot prevail over Russia’s restocked military arsenal, America is already negotiating market access to Russia financed by its eventually un-frozen central bank reserves. Turning de facto realities into de jure settlement would allow Europe to focus its fiscal firepower where it is needed most: within.
Indeed, Europe would be wise to pursue strategic autonomy not only in the military domain but also to do “whatever it takes” to accelerate integration in the arenas of energy, AI (EuroStack), common bonds, capital markets, banking and other agendas. This is a far more enhanced approach to the buzzword “resilience” than security alone. Europe has great potential upside from widening (to include Ukraine and the remaining Balkan states) and deepening – and has only itself to blame if it falls short.
A key area of progress is the “coalitions of the willing” around semiconductors, critical minerals and other areas. In my first books The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order (2008) and How to Run the World (2011), I contrasted America’s “coalition” style of diplomacy with Europe’s “consensus” and Asia’s “consultative” approaches. The emergent coalitions geared towards ensuring resilient supply chains in the face of monopolistic weaponization are not a lesser form of diplomacy than rigid and symbolic multilateralism; they represent a dynamic and effective response to urgent international conditions.
Functional coalitions spanning commodities and technology also underscore the immense capabilities available across the network of Trans-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific partners. What I call the “Global Rimland” deserves more regular convening to strengthen complementarities in the years ahead. In the years ahead, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) could become the anchor venue to establish Europe’s global rather than merely transatlantic positioning.