The foreign policy elite came to Munich again this weekend, eager for beer, brats and bilats. The 2024 Munich Security Conference was crowded and hectic as security details crowded delegates scrambling to get in touch with the makers. The meeting featured both an online portal and a smartphone app, and participants used them to arrange meetings with old friends and complete strangers. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the affair “diplomatic speed dating,” and that summed it up.
Despite all the conviviality, there was a dark mood this year. I've been attending this conference for almost two decades now and the ratio of concerns to solutions has rarely been higher. A year ago, transatlantic allies were united in their determination to resist Russia and help Ukraine. Kiev had recently recaptured large areas, Moscow's offensive was stagnating and hopes of a Ukrainian counteroffensive were high. There were concerns about Western industrial production, the sustainability of a long campaign and how to balance a focus on European security with challenges in Asia. But the Munich zeitgeist in 2023 was one of iron determination rather than great concern.
This year it was different.
Russia on the march
Just as the sessions were about to begin, the shocking news of Alexei Navalny's death shocked participants. Vice President Kamala Harris addressed it in advance. “If this is confirmed,” she said, “it would be another sign of Vladimir Putin's brutality.” Whatever story they tell, let's be clear: Russia bears responsibility.” After her speech, to the surprise of the audience, Yulia Navalnaya entered , Alexei's wife, the stage. She spoke with complete poise to a silent ballroom. When she heard the devastating news of her husband's death, she said, “I thought: Should I stand here before you or should I return to my children?” And then I thought: What would Alexei have done in my place? And I'm sure he would have been standing here on this stage.” After she demanded with great dignity and eloquence that Putin be held accountable, the audience applauded for a long time.
Navalny's death hung over the course of the weekend and seemed to reflect Moscow's new development. Hopes of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive or claims that Western sanctions would bring the Russian economy to a standstill were gone. This also applies to predictions that last year's Prigozhin mutiny would irreparably damage Putin's domestic invincibility. Instead, participants now worried about Russia retaking land in Ukraine – and over the weekend the city of Avdiivka fell, marking Russia's first major territorial gain since May 2023. Ukraine is running out of ammunition on the Eastern Front (the head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the South said the Russians have a 10-to-1 shell advantage), missile and air defense stocks are dwindling and – without US help – the state's coffers are soon empty would be. Russia, on the other hand, has built a war economy, is absorbing ammunition and weapons from North Korea and Iran, and appears willing to throw away many more Russian lives in its quest for conquest. Meanwhile, Putin becomes more confident, talking old history with Tucker Carlson and declaring, “Forward! Success! To new borders!” in front of his compatriots. He is reportedly planning to send a nuclear weapon into space.
For the first time there was serious talk about a possible Russian threat to NATO territory. Previously, the Russian attack on Ukraine was viewed even in Europe as an affront to the international order and an unacceptable attempt to change borders by force. The mood has shifted towards the view that Russia must be stopped in Ukraine so that it does not advance to other destinations such as Moldova and eventually even NATO countries. The Danish defense minister said Russia is rearming quickly and could attack NATO within three to five years. The chairman of the German Bundestag's Defense Committee put the time frame at five to eight years, and Estonian intelligence said it was closer to a decade.
There hasn't been much consensus on exactly how to stop Russia in Ukraine, aside from calls to provide more military, economic and humanitarian support to Kiev. US Senator JD Vance noted that Ukraine must make territorial concessions to end the conflict. European leaders pledged new efforts to increase arms production and announced their latest $50 billion aid pledge. Last month, NATO signed a contract to produce artillery shells worth $1.2 billion, and the Danish prime minister announced in Munich that his country would move all of its artillery to Kiev. Czech President Petr Pavel said another 800,000 artillery shells could be procured abroad and delivered to Ukraine within weeks – if a source of funding was available.
Europeans spoke of the need to increase their own defense spending and industrial production. Germany is expected to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense this year for the first time since the 1990s. Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated his promise to keep defense spending at 2 percent of GDP “in the 2020s, 2030s and beyond.” His defense minister said German defense spending could one day rise to 3.5 percent of GDP. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, seen as the leading candidate to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as NATO secretary general, said Europe should “stop whining and whining” about Donald Trump and instead start spending more on defense. NATO expects 18 of its 31 members to reach the 2 percent mark this year, compared to 2014 when only three members did so. Nevertheless, the European average is now only 1.6 percent, while Russia plans to spend 6 percent of its GDP on defense this year.
Everyone – Europeans, Ukrainians, Americans and delegates from other regions – agreed on one point: what America does or doesn't do will be crucial.
This realization sparked major worry number two.
Come home, America?
Congress's failure so far to pass an additional aid package that includes more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine has unnerved Europeans and others. Trump's recent statement – that he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell it wants” to underspend NATO countries – coupled with the real potential of a second Trump term to worry them even more. Washington has repeatedly pledged to support Ukraine “for as long as necessary.” What happens if this isn't the case?
The vice president tried to allay such fears. “I know there are questions here in Europe and around the world about the future of America’s global leadership,” she said. These are questions that the American people must also ask themselves.” She continued: “It is in the fundamental interest of the American people that the United States fulfill our long-standing role as global leader,” and in partial fulfillment of that role, the Administration “Working to secure critical weapons and resources for Ukraine is so urgently needed.” But with the House of Representatives led by the opposite party and the presidential election less than nine months away, no administration official has been able to fully reassure his hesitant allies.
Harris and other administration officials pledged allied solidarity, deep commitment and sustained support. However, this could only happen if President Joe Biden is re-elected. If Trump is elected, the United States could still do the right thing after trying everything else. The reality remains: No matter who said what, a completely different US team with completely different priorities could arrive in Munich next year.
Volodymyr Zelensky, who was personally present, drew attention to the urgency. He also focused on American aid. Referring to the House's two-week recess, he reminded the audience that “dictators don't go on vacation.” “Maintaining artificial weapons deficits in Ukraine, especially in artillery and long-range capabilities, allows Putin to adapt to the current intensity of the war,” Zelensky said. This self-weakening of democracy over time undermines our collective outcomes.”
With Russia on the rise and Europe worried, was Washington in or out? The talk of “strategic autonomy” for Europe or an understanding with other major powers is long gone. Europeans want the United States to be active and on their side. And although it has become unfashionable to speak of America as an indispensable power, at least it is so when it comes to the Ukraine and Russia issues.
Everything else, everywhere, all at once
European security issues naturally dominated a conference established to discuss important but sometimes murky transatlantic issues. But the war in Gaza raged on, and Israeli President Isaac Herzog made a passionate plea for the return of the hostages held by Hamas – and even drew attention to former hostages standing on the balcony. Herzog reportedly met quietly with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al Thani in Munich, raising hopes that a return was imminent – and perhaps even an end to the fighting.
Iranian officials who had appeared in Munich for years to rail against the West were nowhere to be seen, and this year they were again disinvited by the organizers. The “Axis of Resistance” and Iran's role in destabilizing the Middle East generated plenty of discussion, as did the prospects for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. Only a few concrete suggestions emerged.
Then there was China. While Beijing persistently preoccupies Washington's foreign policy minds, China only caused minor waves in Munich. Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke and stuck to tried-and-tested phrases about Taiwan's independence and the dangers of economic decoupling. Wang met with Blinken and, unlike last year, there were no immediate reports of behind-the-scenes diplomatic fireworks. If things were going better in Europe and developments in the US weren't so uncertain, delegates would probably be much more focused on the promise of Asia and the challenge of China. This time there were more pressing issues to worry about.
* * *
As this informal report describes, the mood in Munich was bad. Maybe I've just attended too many of these conferences over the years, but things seemed too pessimistic. It's true: Russia has some advantages in Ukraine that it previously lacked, and weapons and manpower are running low in Kiev. Yes, there are problems all over the world, from the Middle East to Europe to the Indo-Pacific and beyond. The U.S. Congress is stuck and struggling to agree on solutions to major national challenges. And of course, it is an election year in the United States with two very different presidential candidates and great uncertainty about the path forward.
And yet. The allies – advanced democracies across the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific – retain their enormous strengths and advantages. It is the job of leaders to translate these into concrete actions that protect their interests and maintain an orderly world. That is entirely possible.
It's okay to worry so far. I hope that next year in Munich we will hear less about fearful diagnoses and more about concrete recipes. It would be even better to commit to action, such as more Danish commitments to supply arms to Ukraine, an increase in defense spending by the almost half of NATO countries that are still below the 2 percent limit, agreements on a joint industrial production and measures to reduce Russia's frozen foreign exchange reserves, additional nations joining Red Sea patrols, and countries harmonizing their export controls and other economic steps toward China.
The shared discomfort should inspire collective action. We can imagine the alternatives.
Richard Fontaine is executive director of the Center for a New American Security and co-author of the forthcoming book “Lost Decade: The US Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power.”
Image: Munich Security Conference