The Munich Security Conference began on 14 February, with the war in Ukraine high on the agenda. The gathering has drawn numerous world leaders, including Volodymyr Zelensky. In an interview with The Ukrainian Week, Hanna Hopko, Chair of the Board of the National Interests Advocacy Network “ANTS” and a former Ukrainian MP, outlined the key themes of the discussions, the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine, and the broader dynamics of a multipolar world.
— Over the past two days, there has been no shortage of statements—many of them centred on how to end the war in Ukraine. In your view, what are the most crucial points that should be the focus?
— The dominant conversation here is about how to end the war, the prospects for negotiations, the conditions required, security guarantees, and deterrence.
But the fundamental reality remains: Russia, as an aggressor state with imperial ambitions, has no intention of ending the war. Even if it pauses operations, it will only use the time to regroup, assemble new strike forces, and enhance its drone and missile capabilities for the next offensive.
In his speech, Ukraine’s president warned of a new staging ground Russia is setting up in Belarus. This is more than just another attack on Ukraine—it is a clear signal that Europe must take the lead. It can no longer depend on the United States as its security guarantor. Many, particularly in Europe, struggle to accept this—even though they have both the military capacity and the ability to expand arms production. But the message is clear: those expecting negotiations are, in reality, failing to prepare for a wider war that will not be contained to Ukraine. And this is not about the hybrid threats so often mentioned here, such as those in the Baltic Sea.
It is now openly acknowledged that Ukraine’s Armed Forces are, in effect, Europe’s army. If Europe does not want Washington stepping in to dictate the terms of democracy, it must take greater responsibility for its own strategic autonomy. The axis of evil is already firmly in place. While there may be efforts by the U.S. to negotiate with Russia behind Ukraine’s back—along with calculations we are not privy to—or misplaced hopes of pulling Russia away from China’s influence, the reality is stark. Russia and China have already cemented a strategic partnership, with Moscow acting as the key broker, integrating North Korea and Iran into this axis.
Yet instead of reinforcing its position by deepening cooperation with Europe and Ukraine—particularly given that Ukraine’s NATO membership remains on the table—the U.S. appears to be pressuring the weaker party. There has been no hesitation in raising past territorial disputes over Greenland, so why, then, does Washington avoid confronting Russia over Wrangel Island, which it once annexed from the United States?
– Volodymyr Zelensky made several remarks about Europe, stating that no decisions about the continent should be made without its involvement and raising the idea of a European Armed Forces. Meanwhile, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stressed the urgent need for Europe to develop its own action plan for Ukraine. How tangible are these European positions and reactions?
– Speakers at the conference included former Dutch Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the President of the European Council, and the Prime Ministers of Denmark and Sweden. They acknowledged that valuable time has been lost. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine—an act of genocide—Europe has failed to expand its capabilities or reduce its reliance on the U.S., assuming Washington would always step in.
At the same time, Olaf Scholz pointed out in his speech that Germany is now providing several times more military and economic support to Ukraine than the U.S. While Europe has already delivered significant aid, he stressed that much more is needed and warned that it must prepare for the possibility of U.S. support diminishing—or even vanishing entirely.
Behind the scenes, discussions have centred on the urgent need for Ukraine to resist pressure and avoid bad deals, while Europe comes to terms with the fact that it must prepare not just for war with Russia but for a broader confrontation with the entire “axis of evil.” This shift also means facing the reality that sustaining Europe’s defence efforts will require higher taxation.
In his speech, Scholz highlighted that Germany’s spending on security, defence, and foreign policy has surged from €30 billion to nearly €90 billion. He emphasised that Germany has taken tangible steps and urged other countries to follow suit. In essence, the European Union must present a unified front—not only the EU but also the UK and Norway, which must recognise that Europe is a single entity, not a fragmented collection of actors. By doing so, they can demonstrate both strength and commitment. This includes imposing even tougher sanctions and confiscating Russian assets.
The key point we are trying to emphasise is that when Russia is weak, now is not the time to consider granting it respite by falling into the trap of negotiations. Russian negotiators, steeped in the KGB’s methods of deception, will set various traps, presenting unacceptable demands on Ukraine. These could range from invoking the so-called Istanbul agreements to pressing on issues like the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine, language policies, and more.
This is why many now recognise that Trump made significant missteps by not acting from a position of U.S. strength but instead playing into Russia’s hands and lowering the bar on demands that should have been non-negotiable preconditions for any dialogue.
– NATO has been a key focus of the discussions, with Senator Lindsey Graham suggesting that Ukraine could be fast-tracked for membership if Russia launches another attack. What have you observed—both in official sessions and behind the scenes—regarding reactions to Ukraine’s potential NATO accession?
– The statement was met with strong pushback, with many making it clear that falling into the Kremlin’s narrative is a mistake. The decision not to grant Ukraine a NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008 only encouraged Moscow—first with its war against Georgia, then with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin sees hesitation as weakness, and NATO’s indecision has already given him the green light once before.
Most people here aren’t buying the argument for caution. The general view is that the process should move in stages—first, invite Ukraine to NATO, and only then, once Russian troops start pulling back, talk about the next steps. The focus should be on raising the stakes, not lowering them.
At the same time, the NATO Secretary General said he’s getting an overwhelming number of calls from leaders in Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, all asking: “What is happening?” They know that any bad deal for Ukraine won’t just lead to more Russian aggression in Europe—it will have serious consequences across the world, especially in the Indo-Pacific.
– This year’s Munich Security Conference report also highlights the idea of a multipolar world, naming the key players as the U.S., China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa. At the same time, we’re seeing Trump’s take on global order, with his comments on Gaza, Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. What are the main challenges of this multipolarity that are being discussed at the conference?
– The big question right now is about the U.S.’s role. Will it keep leading the democratic camp against the axis of evil, or will it take a step back and become a neutral mediator? If it’s the latter, the whole narrative changes—from a clash between the West and Ukraine on one side, and Russia and its allies on the other, to a scenario where Ukraine, Europe, and Russia negotiate, with the U.S. in the middle.
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has been sharply critical of Europe, supporting the pro-Russian candidate in Romania’s elections and the far-right “Alternative for Germany” party. This sparked strong reactions from Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz, who condemned backing extremist groups, pointing to the Dachau concentration camp as a chilling reminder of where this kind of thinking can lead.
Now, Europe needs to figure out a plan—whether the U.S. is involved or not—to ensure its own strategic independence and continued support for Ukraine’s success. Even if the U.S. is tempted to find a way to cooperate with Russia, avoiding accountability and pushing for a deal that favours imperialist interests, Ukraine must stay firm.
