Munich 2026: the end of illusions – who wants a "long war" and at whose expense?
The first signal came from the United States. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech was as diplomatic as possible in form and rather cold in content. Yes, there were words about partnership and unity. But the key message was clear: the United States will act in its own national interests, even without full consensus with its allies. Translated from diplomatic language, this means one simple thing: there is no longer an automatic security umbrella. Europe should prepare for Washington to make decisions on its own, including those concerning Ukraine. The world is becoming less and less like a system of "rules" and more and more like a system of force and pragmatism. Munich only confirmed this.
The second aspect, which is much more complicated for us, is the European logic of a "long war." Behind the scenes, there is a growing sentiment that while Ukraine is at war, Europe is buying time. Some European political circles are seriously discussing a scenario of war until 2029-2030 as a way to exhaust Russia as much as possible. For them, this is a geopolitical calculation. For us, it is people's lives, demographics, the economy and the future of the state.
This is where it becomes clear why the president sometimes reacts publicly and quite harshly to certain European partners. In Ukraine, some analysts criticise such steps, saying that it is not worth upsetting allies. But we must honestly realise that President Zelensky sees the real political kitchen of Europe much more deeply than commentators in studios. If he sends public signals, it is not emotion, but an awareness of processes and risks.
Yes, Europe is providing large aid packages – €90 billion and other support programmes. We are grateful for this. But this is not charity. It is an investment in its own security. And this is the least the EU can pay for Ukraine effectively containing the main military threat on the continent. Ukraine is paying incomparably more – with the lives of tens of thousands of people, economic losses, demographic collapse, and destroyed infrastructure. Therefore, there is no need to romanticise European aid – it is pragmatic. And our policy must also be pragmatic.
The third line is China. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi tried to play on European ambitions by saying that Europe should be "at the table" and not "on the menu" of negotiations. The wording is beautiful. But the strategic reality is different. It is China that has become the main economic beneficiary of the protracted war. Record trade turnover with Russia, discounted energy resources, settlements in yuan, supplies of dual-use components — all this allows Moscow to remain stable. Formally, Beijing does not supply finished weapons. In fact, it fuels the Russian military-industrial machine.
The protracted war is beneficial to China in several ways: Russia is becoming more dependent, Europe is weakening, transatlantic unity is eroding, and the US is embroiled in a long-term confrontation. This is a strategic gain without direct military involvement.
The main conclusion from Munich is simple and at the same time not so simple: the world is entering a phase of open redistribution of power. The US is acting autonomously and toughly. Europe is thinking in terms of its own time advantage. China is playing the long game. In this configuration, Ukraine cannot afford to be an instrument of someone else's exhaustion or a "buffer" between centres of power. Our interest is not in a war until 2030 for the sake of someone else's geopolitical arithmetic, but in real security guarantees, strategic integration into the European defence space and the end of the war on terms that will not destroy the country.
Munich 2026 showed the main thing: there is support, but there are no more illusions. And that means that from now on, we will have to play hard, soberly and exclusively in our own interests.
Original source: Author's Facebook page
All texts in the "Position" section are published in full from the original sources. The editorial board may not share the authors' opinions and is not responsible for their statements.
