Security? No! A Conference on War was Held in Munich

Despite the media propaganda and dramatic appearances, one thing was reaffirmed at the Munich Security Conference: the West is seeking war in Ukraine! The Americans, because they are waging an economic war against Europe. NATO, because it has hegemonic pretensions in Europe. The Brussels elites, because they want to turn the EU into a federal superstate. The arms industry, because its shares are on the rise. The motto of the security conference "Peace through dialogue" is a contradiction in terms: anyone who issues an international warrant against the President of the Russian Federation and does not invite any representatives to the conference does not want dialogue!

Last week, even before the first limousines arrived outside the Bayerischer Hof hotel, a small group of opponents of the war protested outside the venue of the 60th Munich Security Conference. None of them was under 60, but their message was all the clearer: the conference is a demonstration of warmongers and arms lobbyists and must therefore be rejected in any case.

Any critical citizen should be ashamed at the sight of such a spectacle. Is it possible that the protest will be limited to a few pacifists from the '68 movement? Is it really possible that only minorities, in Germany as in the rest of EU Europe, are rubbing salt in the wound, even after two years, and saying loud and clear: This war in Ukraine is sought by the West, it is financed and kept alive by the West? Is it possible that a conference on the war is being held in the middle of Munich, accomagnied by applause and flashbulbs? And everyone acts as if this was perfectly normal?

The propaganda machine that sets the tempo in the media landscape via the four major Western news agencies continues unabated. When the Russian President talks for many minutes about Russian history in his interview with Tucker Carlson, this is derided as indoctrination and authoritarian pretension.

But who among the self-proclaimed Western elites can claim to really know the history of this part of Europe, or even to have understood it?

Who can claim to know their own history, even if, as in the case of Ukraine, it goes back only a few years? Why don't those in charge at Bayerischer Hof do a bit of self-criticism and analyse what they themselves contributed to the failure of the Minsk agreements? Why don't they at least once take a look at the map of Europe and ask themselves what role geography plays when it comes to the security needs of different countries? Or has a knowledge of geography become obsolete in an age when we can only orient ourselves through the navigation systems of the technostructure?

Talking of the technostructure: the old pacifists were already right, and it goes without saying that the Munich conference was a lobbying event. The who's who of the techno-military-industrial complex meets there. Alphabet is represented, as is Rheinmetall, and digital groups such as Microsoft and Meta sponsor side events and networking dinners to secure attention and orders. They are the real puppeteers in the shadows, combatants with no status under international law who know how to direct governments and their defence budgets.

For their part, the heads of state and government are trying to get ahead of themselves by announcing increased defence budgets and deliveries of arms and aid to Ukraine. Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor who does not even control his own federal budget, is currently being hailed as a playmaker in Europe. In his speech on Saturday, he spoke of his country's about-turn on defence spending and called on other European allies to take inspiration from Germany's spending on Ukraine. He was applauded for this, in particular by Germany's largest arms group, Rheinmetall (the fact that Rheinmetall has long since been run not by Germans but by Americans is another story). Scholz signed an agreement with the President of Ukraine promising security and long-term support. The German Chancellor, who last week launched the motto "One for all, all for one" alongside Donald Tusk in the Chancellery, promises to support Ukraine with arms and money for as long as necessary. As we have said, we are talking about the same Chancellor who, at the start of a recession, is burdening Germany with a budget crisis of his own making.

A bitter aftertaste remains: because it is quite clear that the EU, and Germany in particular, is expected to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine. Because unlike the Balkans or Iraq, one of the characteristics of the new era of hybrid warfare is that the technostructure is already moving across the country like a swarm of locusts to grab the best bits before and during the fighting. 

Critical observers know that in recent years Ukraine has ceded essential elements of its state sovereignty to the global non-state technostructure. It is clear that developments motivated by economic interests have taken place on Ukrainian soil, and that they cannot easily be reconciled with the rules hitherto in force in the EU states (acquis communautaire).

In principle, the European states had long been aware that Ukraine was permitting a multitude of activities on its territory which represented a considerable potential for risk and conflict for both neighbouring EU states and the Russian Federation (for example, biological research laboratories with high-risk research). The sanctions against Russia are intended to conceal the fact that the West, contrary to its own norms and rules, did not take early action against Ukraine to prevent developments on its territory that could endanger peace and freedom in Europe and Eurasia.

The main means of this concealment is the abuse of information, media and control policy by Western states in the context of the war in Ukraine. The West is undoubtedly not unhappy that traces have been erased by the conflict - and that the erasure of traces resembles a crime. Everything is being done to avoid a full and accurate presentation of the development of this conflict, of the contribution of third parties, but also of the real cause and course of this conflict.

This is why the West is seeking this war, and why it will support and prolong it as long as possible. By then, the locusts of the technostructure will have long since moved on. And what will be left is a state in ruins, with a desolate infrastructure and enormous environmental and social damage. The Americans will no longer have any interest in this territory; they will have achieved their goal of destabilising Europe through economic warfare. Europeans, on the other hand, will be left with a risk factor in the middle of the continent.

What remains of the Munich Conference?
This year's World Economic Forum in Davos was already a highly questionable event, but the one in Munich is even more so. The motto of the Security Conference, "Peace through Dialogue", is a contradiction in terms: anyone who issues an international warrant against the President of the Russian Federation and does not invite any representatives to the conference does not want dialogue! The basic rules of diplomacy, as they have been applied for centuries and have always worked, are being flouted. Once again, the Germans are making themselves the auxiliaries of the Atlantic axis. We hardly hear a critical word about the economic war that the United States is waging against Europe. Hardly a word of criticism of NATO's hegemonic pretensions in Europe. The red carpet is rolled out for the technostructure - well, if the multinationals absolutely want to be in the front line, let's give them status under international law!

This article was first published in Courrier des stratèges on February 20th, 2024