Results of the Munich Security Conference

In comparison to previous years, threats to the West became even more evident at this Munich conference. Even attempts at pressuring Russia which took place were unsuccessful, perhaps even impossible.

The Syrian Crisis

The main issue discussed by the conference was the Syrian crisis. It is significant that on this matter the West was so determined to act against Russia that its actions were not even rational. Seeing that Moscow offered to declare a ceasefire starting on March 1, the West reacted with a proposal for immediate ceasefire, which is not only practically impossible but also has to be approved by many sides of the conflict.


The influx of refugees to Europe was the second issue of the conference. The EU has proven incapable of proposing an efficient plan for resolving this issue. Some states offered mere technical solutions, but at the heart of this challenge is liberal ideology itself which promotes “tolerance” and contempt for traditional European values. This European liberalism is bolstered by the US through official and unofficial structures, including diplomatic ties, agreements, treaties, and various funds and programs.


Another important issue was the fight against international terrorism, especially the Islamic State. European representatives positively appraised Russian progress in this sphere, a milestone which indicates a change of the information climate in Europe. As a number of countries are being directly faced by this threat and have not received any help from the USA, they are gradually coming to understand that Washington cannot be a reliable partner under such circumstances. It was also revealed that the CIA knew beforehand about the preparation of terrorist attacks in Paris, a fact which has contributed to the growth of skepticism towards US policies.

The Future of the EU

All the while, the EU faces a challenge to its very integrity. There are two points of view on the future of this association. There is the European approach which is based on revisionism and poses the double question: is it important to maintain the EU in its current format and what must be changed? The other position belongs to the United States. The US is interested in, first and foremost, keeping the EU in its current form as a transatlantic project and continuing to influence and implement geopolitical interests through existing institutions. This includes manipulating European institutions against Russia. In this case, Moscow is in favor of the disintegration of the EU and the establishment in its place of a genuine European Community which would make decisions independent of Washington’s foreign policy.