Enlarge image
Peace demonstrators on the sidelines of the security conference in Munich
Photo: IMAGO / IMAGO/Wolfgang Maria Weber
It is one of the peculiarities of important international conferences that their participants are in a bubble.
Many fly in from afar, heavy limousines pull up.
Heads of state, ministers, scientists and the military talk about the world outside, but at the same time the reality is far away.
This is also the case at the security conference in Munich.
While Russians and Ukrainians are killing each other a few hundred kilometers away, in Munich, in hotel bars, in well-tempered conference rooms and at nice dinners, people are contemplating the great course of time.
There is duck, red cabbage and white wine.
All well secured by the German police.
You seriously can't blame any of the participants for that.
Meetings of this kind are important.
It's all about finding out and understanding the positions of others.
Important decision-makers stay in touch with each other.
But the simultaneity of events seems particularly bizarre this time.
This becomes obvious when the war in Munich does become visible for a few moments.
For example in an exhibition about Russian war crimes that the organizers have set up in the Bayerischer Hof.
The longtime head of the security conference, Wolfgang Ischinger, invites the Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi to look at the pictures.
The Chinese just looks at him impassively and says: nothing.
At the so-called Ukraine Lunch of the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation and the organization Yalta European Strategy (YES) on the fringes of the conference, war is suddenly very close.
Because among the participants are some Ukrainian soldiers in combat uniforms who come from the war zone.
One has only one arm, the other he lost in a defensive fight against Russia.
There is a lot of distance
When it comes to the most important finding at this conference, the observers will probably quickly agree.
The West, i.e. mainly the NATO countries plus Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, are presenting themselves as united as never before.
But one seems to become further alienated from some parts of the world.
A new world disorder is looming, in which some major powers and blocs of countries are struggling.
The frightening question is: Who will still stick to common rules?
How is such lasting peace to be created?
The market place for ideas, which one could call the security conference, is also becoming smaller.
The representatives of the Russian and Iranian governments, who previously attended the meeting, were not invited this time for known reasons.
The representative of China, Wang Yi, invokes world peace and cooperation, but otherwise shows a lot of skepticism towards the USA.
The next possible major conflict is already clearly on the horizon.
At least there is a conversation between Wang and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the meeting.
It is the first gathering of this kind since a suspected Chinese spy balloon was launched over the east coast of the United States.
You blame each other for the balloon affair.
But at least they still talk to each other.
The Munich Security Conference is and remains the ideal forum for such informal talks, as a kind of neutral ground in international diplomacy.
The so-called Global South is also represented at the meeting by a number of foreign ministers and heads of state.
The EU, Germany, France want to woo the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, they want to support them, also so that they do not come under Chinese and Russian influence.
But in Munich, in addition to sympathy, there is also a lot of distance.
Nana Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana, is evident on the stage in the Bayerischer Hof.
Now he hears the word solidarity, he says.
But: »During the corona pandemic we didn’t experience this solidarity, we Africans were left on our own.«
How does the war end?
The most acute issue, around which almost everything revolves in Munich, remains Russia's war in Ukraine.
"How will this war end?" a moderator asked Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba.
"I've been asked that for the third time since 7:30 this morning," he replies, slightly annoyed.
It is fitting for this conference that the answers to this question are also very different.
Kuleba is clear: it is about nothing less than the "complete liberation of Ukrainian territory," he says.
The American representatives and most Europeans are once again clear: they believe Ukraine will decide when and how it wants to end this war.
No one wants to force the country to sign a premature peace agreement.
US Vice President Kamala Harris affirmed that Ukraine would be supported in its defensive struggle for as long as necessary.
The new German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius from the SPD also says clearly: "Ukraine must win this war." Only French President Emmanuel Macron remains somewhat ambiguous in the West by also bringing negotiations with Moscow into play, but without saying exactly how he imagines it.
The matter becomes more complicated when one listens to the representative of China.
Wang Yi announces his country's peace plan in Munich.
He doesn't give any specific details, but the Americans and Europeans already have an idea of what Beijing sees as the initial goal - a ceasefire that could help Vladimir Putin in particular.
That's exactly what nobody wants in Ukraine, and most western representatives are skeptical too.
The concern in Munich is probably not entirely unjustified that Putin would use a ceasefire brokered by China to rearm his army and then later launch a new offensive along the frozen battle line.
The Chinese advance is made even more explosive by the fact that there are fears in Munich that the Chinese might be able to supply Moscow with weapons after all.
Kamala Harris expressly warns Beijing against such a step.
A sustainable peace solution that permanently protects Ukraine from Russian aggression is unlikely to come about in this way.
Especially since in this scenario the country would also have to relinquish part of its own territory, which Putin unlawfully appropriated.
The perpetrator would also be rewarded for his attack.
From a Western point of view, such a peace does not seem to be an option.
But how will this war end then?
And how can a lasting peace order in Europe be achieved with Russia?
One of the smartest – but also particularly bitter – insights came from the US author Anne Applebaum in Munich: »The realistic answer is that this war will end when the Russians understand that it was a mistake.«
