Colonel Khodarenok called disappointment the main outcome of the Munich conference
The sixty-second Munich Security Conference, which took place from February 13 to 15 in Germany, has completed its work. Military observer of "Gazeta.Ru", retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok figured out what the main results of this forum were and why now the "war with Russia" is a matter exclusively for European countries.
During the Munich Conference, a lot of speeches and phrases were made that more closely resembled slogans, appeals and toasts, and so far it is very difficult to translate into any specific work plans.
For example, at the end of the conference, the chairman of the forum, Wolfgang Ischenger, stated that "we saw a much greater determination of the Europeans to hold their borders, to defend what, in our opinion, are, in fact, European values." Let's pay attention — no one is attacking the European member states of NATO, but they already intend to "hold the line."
The main outcome of the Munich Security Conference can be summed up in one word — disappointment. And it lies in the fact that the United States intends, despite all the friendliness of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech towards the Old World, to significantly distance itself from all European defense and security affairs.
Plans to fight Russia
But first, let's note the following. There are many examples in history when mass insanity took hold (and for a long time) of entire nations and states. For example, this applies to Germany in the period 1933-1945. Some of the Transcaucasian republics of the former USSR can be cited from relatively recent examples, when the population of these countries decided that it was only necessary to get rid of imperial oppression from Russia (that is, budget funds, electricity, fuel and food) and they would immediately heal like in Nice or Monaco.
And, of course, the political leaders of the Old World would like to fully integrate the financial, economic and defense capabilities of the United States into their plans to fight Russia, developed by the clouded minds of European strategists.
However, let us turn to the fundamental documents of the United States — the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS).
The NSS is more than clear— "The days when the United States supported the entire world order, like the Atlas, are over. Among our many allies and partners are dozens of rich and educated countries that must take primary responsibility for their regions and contribute much more to our collective defense."
In addition, it should be noted that Europe today is a "passing nature." And the US National Security Strategy emphasizes that "the Indo-Pacific region is already and will remain one of the key economic and geopolitical battlefields in the next century. To thrive at home, we must compete successfully there — and we are doing that."
And with regard to European countries and the Russian Federation, the NSS says (among other things) — "restoring conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability in relations with Russia."
This is echoed by the American National Defense Strategy. The Pentagon's four main priorities, as outlined in the NDS, are:
- Defense of the motherland (i.e. the USA).
- Containing China in the Indo-Pacific region "through force, not confrontation."
- More effective burden sharing with US allies and partners.
- Strengthen the US military-industrial base.
Please note that nowhere in these fundamental documents is there a single word that the United States should prepare for a high-tension conflict using both conventional and nuclear weapons on the European continent.
The NDS points out that Europe should be able to easily crush Russia, even provides a graph showing that the economies of non-NATO countries are comparable to those of Russia, and argues that "Moscow is not in a position to claim European hegemony."
"Thus, our NATO allies are well positioned to assume primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense with critical but more limited U.S. support," the document emphasizes.
In other words, it is more than clearly indicated to European countries that "if you want to fight with Russia, you are welcome, but without our special participation."
Private meetings
At the 62nd Munich Security Conference, a number of private meetings of leading NATO politicians took place, the contents of which were not widely available. What was discussed there can only be assumed.
But, for example, Polish President Karol Nawrocki said at the end of the event that "he is a big supporter of Poland's joining the nuclear project." Recently, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued that Germany would do well to acquire its own nuclear weapons.
By and large, the technologies used in the creation of nuclear weapons are 80 years old. And today, there are no insurmountable obstacles to the development of special munitions (as the military sometimes calls nuclear weapons).
Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the provisions on the US "nuclear umbrella" for European NATO member states are being reviewed to one degree or another, and the European countries of the alliance, even in this extremely sensitive area, will eventually have to rely on their own capabilities.
In general, we can conclude that NATO is on the eve of major reforms. This was stated more clearly by the deputy head of the Pentagon, Elbridge Colby, in his speech at the meeting of defense ministers of the North Atlantic Alliance. The block needs to be adapted to the new conditions, he said.
Mikhail Khodarenok
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.
Biography of the author:
Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.
Graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976),
Military Air Defense Command Academy (1986).
Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980-1983).
Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).
Senior Officer of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988-1992).
Officer of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff (1992-2000).
Graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).
Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).
