When asked what role China could play in ending the Russia–Ukraine war, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, replied that his country had played no role in initiating the conflict and that those directly involved should consider how to end it, taking into account the concerns of all parties. Conspicuously, official representatives of the Russian government did not attend the 2026 Munich Security Conference (MSC), where Wang Yi insisted on “harmony without uniformity”, a phrase from Confucian philosophy in the context of the future relationship between China and Europe.

The absence of Russia from the MSC indicated not only exclusion but also Europe’s unwillingness to engage Moscow in political dialogue to end the war. Conversely, the “Coalition of the Willing”, proposed by the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and supported by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, suggested that Europe seeks to end the war not through dialogue but by defeating Russia on the battlefield.

A second layer of irony is added by the growing disarray between Europe and the United States over Greenland and the future of NATO. If this transatlantic alliance were to fracture, could the Coalition of the Willing defeat Russia alone? And, thirdly, if NATO’s future appears uncertain, the question of Ukraine joining the Alliance becomes increasingly irrelevant, and the pretext for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, together with the European hue and cry, begins to look like much ado about nothing.

This year’s MSC opened under the lingering memory of Vice President JD Vance’s speech the previous year, which left the room stunned by his forthright criticism of European immigration policies and what he described as their meagre contribution to the Alliance’s military budget. It also echoed remarks by President Donald Trump, reported after his speech at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos: “By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to reassure European allies by invoking shared history, shared sacrifices and Christian values. While acknowledging this common heritage, he insisted that the United States does not wish to dismantle the institutions it has built together with its European partners, but that those institutions require redefinition. In other words, Europeans must increase their contribution to those institutions — NATO, in particular — in terms of both funding and manpower.

No European or American leader directly urged China to withdraw its support for Russia or to cease purchasing Russian oil

No European or American leader directly urged China to withdraw its support for Russia or to cease purchasing Russian oil

Rubio’s speech is being widely discussed across European media as an attempt to address the deepening cracks within NATO. On France 24’s programme The Debate, Hélène Conway-Mouret, French Senator and Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, candidly interpreted Rubio’s concluding remarks as signalling that the United States expects Europe to purchase more American weapons. “But how can we buy,” she asked in essence, “if we do not have the money?”

Much of President Macron’s speech also articulated a commitment to upholding French social values both offline and online. He argued that Europe must develop its own digital ecosystems and exercise greater control over social media, implying diminished reliance on American data banks and technology platforms, and a move towards greater digital and cyber sovereignty. He also reminded Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has opposed NATO’s expansion, that Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024) have joined the Alliance, demonstrating that it continues to grow.

The disenchantment of European leaders was, by all accounts, evident in their speeches. There were affirmations, vows, nostalgia and disillusionment. They appeared to stand beneath a new sun they had never imagined would shine over them, yet it does.

The only figure who did not seem to share this unease was India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, who sat alongside his European counterparts with what they called the “mother of all deals”, the agreement signed earlier this year between India and the European Union. His country has, moreover, traded elements of its “strategic autonomy” in exchange for tariff concessions from the United States.

He may not readily admit it at home, but the fact remains that India has distanced itself from its long-standing ally, Russia, to forge closer alignment with those whose security is threatened by Moscow and whose economies are increasingly challenged by China’s expanding trade surplus. Jaishankar’s foreign policy has created adversaries on both fronts.

The MSC exposed a twofold anxiety for Europe and the United States alike.

If the United States feels compelled to support Israel in carrying out strikes against Iran, can it realistically proceed alone without NATO allies, as the German Chancellor suggested in his speech that it cannot? Might European participation in a potential confrontation with Iran be traded for continued American support in Ukraine? Or could the Coalition of the Willing sustain its campaign against Russia without US backing, as Starmer appears to envisage?

Remarkably, no European or American leader directly urged China to withdraw its support for Russia or to cease purchasing Russian oil. Nor were questions raised publicly about reports of Russian and Chinese military cargo aircraft arriving in Iran. Jaishankar observed all of this, having curtailed Russian oil purchases under American pressure, celebrating a landmark trade agreement with Europe, while Europe debates how to finance increased defence spending and purchases of US weapons.

On the sidelines, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met Secretary Rubio. Why Pakistan’s Foreign Minister did not appear alongside him remains an open question. Time, perhaps, will provide the answer.

© The Friday Times