As Western leaders gathered in Munich over the past three days, President Vladimir V. Putin had a message for them: Nothing they have done so far – sanctions, condemnation, attempts at containment – would undermine his intentions to disrupt the current world. change command.
Russia scored its first major win in Ukraine in nearly a year by capturing the destroyed city of Avdiivka, resulting in a huge loss of life for both sides. The bodies scattered on the streets were perhaps a warning of a new course of the Two Years' War. The suspicious death of Aleksei A. Navalny in a remote Arctic prison made it increasingly clear that Mr. Putin will not tolerate dissent as elections approach.
And the American discovery in recent days that Mr. Putin may be planning to place a nuclear weapon in space – a bomb designed to destroy the connective tissue of global communications if Mr. Putin is pushed too far – was a stark reminder of his Ability to repel his opponents with the asymmetrical weapons that remain a key source of his power.
In Munich, the mood was both worried and relaxed as leaders faced confrontations they had not expected. Warnings about Putin's possible next moves mixed with Europe's growing concern that it could soon be abandoned by the United States, the only power that has been at the heart of its defense strategy for 75 years.
Hardly an hour went by at the Munich Security Conference when the conversation did not turn to the question of whether Congress would be able to finance new weapons for Ukraine and, if so, how long the Ukrainians could hold out. And although Donald Trump's name was rarely mentioned, much of the dialogue was dominated by the prospect of whether he would follow through on his threats to withdraw from NATO and let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” with allies. which he considered inadequate.
But European heads of state and government also seemed to sense how slowly they had reacted to the new realities. European plans to rebuild their own armed forces for a new era of confrontation were heading in the right direction, one leader after another insisted, but then added that it would take five years or more – time they may not have If Russia overpowers Ukraine and Mr. Trump undermines the alliance.
The sombre mood was in stark contrast to the mood 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 strategic defeat in Ukraine. There was talk of how many months it would take to push the Russians back to the borders that existed before their invasion on February 24, 2022. This optimism now seemed premature at best and slightly delusional at worst.
Nikolai Denkov, the prime minister of Bulgaria, argued that Europeans should learn three lessons from the cascade of problems. The war in Ukraine was not just about gray areas between Europe and Russia, he argued, but about “whether the democratic world that we value can be defeated, and that is now well understood in Europe.”
Second, European nations have recognized that they must combine forces in military, not just economic, endeavors to build their own deterrence, he said. And third, they had to separate Ukraine's urgent needs for ammunition and air defense from longer-term strategic objectives.
But given the Russian leadership's imperialist rhetoric, Mr Denkov said: “Long term in this case means three to five and a maximum of 10 years – it is really urgent.”
American officials fell back on the familiar reassurance that Washington's leadership and commitment remained unchanged. But they were unable to describe a plan of action for Ukraine when Congress was still withholding money for weapons, and they struggled to explain how they could achieve lasting peace after the war in Gaza.
At the Bayerischer Hof Hotel, the conference stage where Mr. Putin warned in 2007 that NATO's eastward expansion posed a threat to Russia, Mr. Navalny's widow made an emotional appearance on Friday just hours after her husband's death, reminding participants that Mr. Putin ““Take responsibility” for this.
But there was little discussion about what the West might do – almost all available sanctions have been imposed, and it was unclear whether the United States and the Europeans would be moved to seize the roughly $300 billion in assets that Russia had unwisely left abroad before the war invasion. When a senior American official was asked how the United States would keep Mr. Biden's 2021 promise of “devastating consequences” for Russia if Mr. Navalny died in prison – a statement made in the presence of Mr. Putin at a meeting in Geneva – the official replied, shrugging his shoulders.
Some participants found the pledges from leaders in attendance uninspiring, said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Italian Institute for International Affairs. “Kamala Harris empty, Scholz mushy, Zelensky tired,” she said of the American Vice President, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Lots of words, no concrete promises.”
“I feel overwhelmed and somewhat disappointed by the debate here,” said Steven E. Sokol, president of the American Council on Germany. “There was a lack of urgency and clarity about the way forward, and I did not see a strong sign of European solidarity.” He and others noted that French President Emmanuel Macron was not present.
Most striking in the Russia conversation was the widespread recognition that Europe's military modernization plans, first announced nearly two decades ago, were progressing far too slowly to meet the threat Russia now poses.
“European defense used to be a possibility, but now it is a necessity,” said Claudio Graziano, a retired Italian general and former chairman of the European Union Military Committee. But saying the right words is not the same as doing what they ask.
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary general, along with a number of defense and intelligence officials, repeatedly referred to recent intelligence conclusions that Mr. Putin could, in three to five years, try to test NATO's credibility by doing one who attacks countries on the Russian border, most likely a small Baltic nation.
But the warning didn't seem to spark a very urgent discussion about how to prepare for that possibility. The conference celebrated the fact that two-thirds of alliance members have now met the goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense – up from just a handful of nations a decade ago. But some admitted that the target was now completely outdated and immediately spoke about the political obstacles to more spending.
Even Mr. Stoltenberg warned that Europe would remain dependent on the United States and its nuclear umbrella, and that if the United States continued to deny military aid to Ukraine, other NATO countries would be unable to pick up the slack.
But the prospect of reduced American involvement in NATO as the United States turns to other challenges from China or the Middle East focused minds.
“We have to achieve more” in Europe, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said at the conference. But when asked whether his country's military spending should be closer to 4 percent of Germany's economic output, he was hesitant to commit to it, as this is the first year in decades that Berlin has met NATO's 2 percent military target will be issued.
“Maybe we’ll get to 3 percent or maybe even 3.5 percent,” he finally said. “It depends on what is happening in the world.” When his boss, Mr. Scholz, took the stage, he said that “Europeans need to do much more for our security, now and in the future,” but he refrained details away. He said he was “urgently” lobbying other European capitals to increase military spending.
But the fundamental discrepancy was still evident: when Europeans thought Russia was integrating into European institutions, they stopped planning and spending for fear they might be wrong. And when Russia's attitude changed, their reaction was understated.
“These are 30 years of underinvestment coming home,” said François Heisbourg, a French defense analyst, who called them “les trente paresseuses” — the 30 lazy years of post-Cold War peace dividends, as opposed to the 30 glorious years that were followed by World War II.
Kaja Kallas, the prime minister of Estonia, said Europe must strengthen its defenses “because what really provokes an attacker is weakness.” Then Mr. Putin could risk attacking a country like hers to split NATO. “But if we do more to defend ourselves, it will be a deterrent. The people around Putin would say that you can't win. Don’t take this in.”
It is important for Europeans to remember that this hot war in Ukraine is close and could spread quickly, Ms. Kallas said. “So when you think you're far away, you're not far away. It can happen very, very quickly.”
Dmytro Kuleba, the foreign minister of embattled Ukraine, was more explicit. “I think our friends and partners have been late to bring their own defense industry to life,” he said. “And we will pay with our lives throughout 2024 to give your defense industry time to ramp up production.”