On 19 February 2022, a year ago this weekend, a kempt if callow Volodymyr Zelenskiy took to the stage at the Munich Security Conference wearing suit and tie to confront the west with the reality of the imminent return of war to Europe and a possible full-scale Russian invasion of his country.
He spoke with the bluntness for which in the past year he has become known, addressing past western appeasement of Russia and saying indifference made a country an accomplice in Russia’s crimes. He also asked for security guarantees to avoid his country being cast as a permanent buffer zone between Europe and Russia, saying clear and honest answers were needed in response to Ukraine’s request for membership of Nato and the European Union.
He vowed to defend his land whether he was given hundreds of modern weapons or just 5,000 helmets, a barbed reference to Germany’s promised support.
The western leaders packed into the Hotel Bayerischer Hof that day retained “a glimmer of hope” that war would be averted, the conference chair, Christoph Heusgen, recalled, but many privately thought if Vladimir Putin were to invade Ukraine, as he did only a week later, he would need only days for his tanks to capture Kyiv and for his generals to hurl Zelenskiy into jail.
One year on, with tens of thousands killed on the battlefield and a further 1,000 speeches delivered, Zelenskiy addressed the same audience of world leaders and diplomats, this time by video.
His face was more haggard, his voice even gruffer and the suit discarded in favour of the now familiar battle fatigues, but his personal standing has been transformed by the courage his country has shown. Yet many of the questions he posed about the west’s commitments to Ukraine and the future security architecture of Europe remained unanswered.
In his “one year on” speech Zelenskiy goaded the west, demanding quicker decisions on sanctions and arms, and saying the only beneficiary of delay was Putin. He warned prevarication might lead to the strangling of Moldova and the achievement of Iran’s nuclear ambitions as Russia transferred enriched uranium to Tehran. As a result the war in Ukraine was as much about peace in the Middle East as in Europe, he said. He insisted Ukraine must become a fully fledged member of the EU and Nato.
In response the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, defended his methodical decision-making, emphasising the virtues of unity and careful calculation faced by the risk of isolation.
But Scholz also gave a steely defence of his step-by-step approach, pointing out that others had yet to meet their responsibilities, and saying: “Everyone who can deliver such battle tanks should really do this now.”
But the truly provocative and sometimes riskiest speech came from the French president, Emmanuel Macron.
Macron started by listing the four clear defeats Putin has already suffered. The war he had started was long, not rapid; not legitimising but neocolonial; not strategically prescient, but one that has drawn Sweden and Finland into Nato’s orbit; and not prestige-enhancing, but mistrust-engendering.
He also steered away from the prospect of imminent negotiations, saying Europe had to be ready for a prolonged conflict. “At the moment, the hour of dialogue hasn’t come yet because Russia chose war … [and] to commit war crimes … Russia cannot and must not win this war, and Russia’s attack must fail.”
He admitted to some personal misjudgments, saying: “A year ago I spoke to Putin and he assured me that the Wagner group [of mercenary soldiers] has nothing to do with him – it was purely a business project. I accepted that. Today we see that the Wagner group is involved in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It has become a new mafioso tool used to create crimes and injustice.”
He also accepted the west had been losing the global south and not done enough to answer the charge of double standards, including by not helping poorer countries quickly enough with Covid vaccines. One way to address the global south’s concerns would be reform of the UN, especially since a permanent member of the security council had tried to destroy the UN charter, he said.
Macron then strayed into territory that had previously landed him in hot water, by saying neither Europe nor Russia had digested the end of the cold war properly. Insisting he was not providing a justification for Russia’s aggression, he argued the west simply could not escape the challenge of finding a way to deal with a largely unreconstructed Russia, or its people.
“I do not believe for one second in regime change,” he said. “When I hear a lot of people advocating for regime change, I would just ask them for which change, who is next and how do you implement it? We have experienced in the past decades regime change many times and it has been a total failure.”
He added the question was “how to twist and create” the current imperfect balance by allowing Russia to build something sustainable for itself. But he admitted it was too early to formulate what this settlement might entail in detail.
Macron also sketched out his preferred Europe-centric security architecture in the aftermath of the war, in which he clearly laid out an invitation to the UK to take up a major security role by attending a conference he planned on the future of air defence. The UK could also take up a role in an enhanced version of the nascent European Political Community forum embracing energy, cyber and crisis prevention.
Macron has come into much criticism for his sometimes ill-timed initiatives and apparent faith in his ability to tame Putin. Doubtless some of what he proposes is too France-centric, but after a period when he has seemed oddly listless, he seems at least ready to try to grasp the helm again.
