Frontrunning the Munich Security Conference 14-16 February

An RBC Article

Since Team Trump has decided to make its offer to Russia in public at the upcoming Munich Security Conference as said by many BigLie Media and AltMedia pundits, I went looking for something in Russian media that provides a Russian view of what might take place. What I found didn’t exactly match my initial expectations but ended up exceeding them. “The Munich Security Conference named the main challenges of 2025” is the title but no author is cited by the publisher RBC, which is a source I haven’t used before. It says it obtained its info directly from the horse’s mouth, the Munich Security Report 2025, plus the “Munich Security Index,” a separate 23-page document, only some of which I’ve read to verify what RBC reports. Based on reports I read about RBC, it seems to aspire to be a Forbes of Bloomberg type of publication but objective versus sycophantic. So here goes:

On the eve of the Munich Security Conference, its experts published an annual report entitled "Multipolarization". In it, they assessed the development of three Western countries and five BRICS members. Read more in the RBC article:

Ahead of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), which will be held from February 14 to 16, its experts have published an annual report on the state of international relations. The 151-page document, titled "Multipolarization," contains eight chapters, each devoted to a different country or group of countries.

Although the question of how multipolar the modern world is remains controversial, the authors stipulate in the preface, multipolarity itself is already a fact. "On the one hand, power is distributed among a large number of actors who can influence key global problems. On the other hand, the world is experiencing growing polarization both between countries and within them, and this hinders the development of joint approaches to global crises and threats," analysts note.

According to them, political and economic liberalism, which formed unipolarity after the Cold War, is no longer the only option: it is questioned by liberal democracies themselves, in many of which "nationalist populism" is gaining popularity, and by external players; at the same time, the gap between democracies and autocracies is growing in the world, as well as multiple models of the world order coexist and compete with each other.

Three chapters out of eight are devoted to the countries of the Western bloc–-the United States, the EU states and Japan—five to the founding countries of the BRICS—China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.

Munich Security Index

As part of the annual report, MSC publishes the Munich Security Index (MSI), which is calculated together with the consulting firm Kekst CNC. This time, experts surveyed a thousand people from 11 G7 and BRICS member countries (excluding Russia, BICS) to assess how these countries perceive 33 global risks.

These risks include: extreme weather and wildfires, climate change, cyberattacks, economic and financial crises, rising inequality, mass migration as a result of wars and climate change, Islamist terrorism, enemy disinformation, international organized crime, political polarization, racism, the gap between global powers, the use of nuclear weapons, civil war, disruption of energy supply chains, the gap between Western institutions, the use of chemical and biological weapons, the pandemic, the collapse of democracy, trade wars, food shortages, as well as attitudes towards other countries and organizations, such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, the United States, and the European Union. [Where’re Christian and Zionist Terrorism and Regime Change Chaos?] Respondents assessed how great these risks are for their countries, whether they will increase or weaken, how great the potential damage is, and how prepared countries are for them.

The top 5 risks for the G7 countries include the following: cyberattacks, Russian influence, extreme weather conditions and forest fires, destruction of natural habitats, and climate change. In the BICS countries, the following five risks are considered the most dangerous: climate change, extreme weather conditions and forest fires, destruction of natural habitats, cyberattacks, and political polarization.

Growing geopolitical competition continues to shape countries' perceptions of each other, analysts say, but this was additionally influenced in 2024 by the conflict in the Middle East and the US elections. All G7 countries perceive Iran, China and Russia more as threats than allies. BICS members do not perceive them this way; the exceptions are China in the eyes of India and Iran in the eyes of Brazil. Respondents from China were the only ones who perceive the United States as a threat rather than a partner. [End Excerpt]

USA: "Consensus collapse"

After the end of the Cold War, there was a consensus in the world that in terms of maintaining the international order, the United States is a global leader with no rivals, analysts write. This consensus was questioned even before the 2024 elections, but Donald Trump's victory "buried" it. "For Trump and many of his supporters, the international order created by the United States is a bad deal," the report says. "Based on this, the United States may abdicate its historical role [?] as a guarantor of Europe's security, which will lead to significant consequences for Ukraine." Analysts believe that in the coming years, Washington's foreign policy will be determined by rivalry with Beijing, which, however, may accelerate the "multipolarization" of the international system.

The European Union: "The Implementation of the Liberal International Order Is in Danger"

MSC analysts call the European Union the embodiment of the liberal international order, and for it, challenging such an order poses a particularly difficult challenge. The fighting in Ukraine "and the rise of nationalist populism in many European societies are threatening key elements of the EU's liberal view," the report says. "Donald Trump's re-election could exacerbate these challenges and revive discussions about whether the EU needs to become more autonomous in international politics," analysts say. These trends could also strengthen populist movements that will deepen internal divisions in Europe and undermine the unit's ability to cope with crises.

Japan: "The Quintessence of the Status Quo Power"

Japan, according to analysts, is the quintessence of a status quo power. As a staunch supporter of liberal internationalism and the leading role of the United States, it is particularly concerned about the end of the unipolar order, the rise of China, and the prospect of multipolarity. In support of this idea, experts cite the MSI assessment: due to the transformation of the world system, respondents from Japan are more worried than others. "At the same time, Tokyo has been preparing for these geopolitical changes longer than others," the report says. "A number of recent measures indicate that Japan is ready to defend itself and the order it values." Among these measures is the country's decision to increase defense spending "so that its defense potential matches its geopolitical weight."

China: "Defending multipolarity as a cover for competition with the United States"

MSC analysts call China the most influential supporter of the multipolar world order, which presents itself as the defender of the interests of the countries of the Global South. "Many countries in the West believe that Beijing's promotion of multipolarity is nothing more than a rhetorical cover for great-power competition with the United States," the report says. "Despite China's significant success in rallying those dissatisfied with the current world order, the country's economic and military development faces a number of internal obstacles." Experts believe that under Trump, the United States will be more active in promoting a policy to contain China. However, Washington's refusal to commit to international obligations or alienate itself from allies will bring Beijing some benefits.

Russia: "The Multipolar World as a Sum of Civilizational States"

"In this century, no state has made as much effort to overturn the international order as Russia has done," analysts write, drawing attention to the fact that, according to Moscow, the multipolar world order consists of "civilizational states," as it sees itself. "Small countries—such as Russia considers Ukraine—fall into the sphere of influence of the "civilizational state," the report says. "Despite the discrepancy between Moscow's perception of itself and its real power, Russia is successfully undermining efforts to stabilize the international order." The extent to which Moscow will be able to implement its vision of multipolar spheres of influence will depend on the reaction of other countries, the experts conclude.

India: "Adept of the policy of multi-adhesion"

Analysts link India's desire for a multipolar world order with its desire to take a place among the world's leading powers. "While Delhi is succeeding in strengthening its position on the world stage, it also faces challenges," the document says. These challenges include the expansion of China's strategic presence, as well as structural weaknesses in the Indian economy and the decline in political and cultural pluralism in the country. Although India positions itself as the voice of the global South, its policy of "multi-alignment" raises the question of whether Delhi can play a more important role in global peacebuilding, experts say.

Brazil: 'More influence for the global South'

Brazil sees multipolarity as an opportunity to reform outdated international institutions and give countries in the Global South more influence. That is why, the report notes, it has made global governance reform a priority of its G20 presidency in 2024, along with topics of interest to the Global South, such as poverty reduction and food security. "Brazil has significant natural resources, and this gives it the potential to shape the global debate on food, climate and energy security in the future," analysts write. However, in the face of geopolitical tensions and Trump's second term, it will be more difficult for Brazil to adhere to its non-aligned strategy, they note.

South Africa: "Criticism of the underrepresentation of developing countries"

South Africa's desire for multipolarity is inextricably linked to its criticism of the current system, primarily the underrepresentation of developing countries in international institutions. "Pretoria also regularly criticizes Western countries for selective compliance with international law," the authors of the report write. According to them, South Africa has long been perceived as a "natural leader" on the African continent and a moral tuning fork on the world stage, but recently its international status has suffered–-and this is due to growing anti-Western sentiment in the country and a decline in respect for human rights and international law. [My Emphasis]

The ending blurb:

The Munich Security Conference has been held annually every February since 1963. Heads of state, lower-ranking politicians and diplomats, the military, representatives of business and non-governmental organizations, experts gather to discuss global security issues in public sessions and on the sidelines. "The MSC has transatlantic and European roots, but our activities also reflect a globalized world," the conference website says. "The MSC seeks to expand its geographical diversity and include stakeholders." Russia has not participated in its work since 2022.

I must remind readers that what’s written are the summarizations of the overall report and its annex. As far as I can tell, very little of the author’s opinion entered into the text. A look at who the primary authors are for the EU section provides an excellent example given the extreme bias of those authors. On Russia, the accusations on their face are absurd. On Japan, it certainly can be called a “model” vassal state but isn’t a “power” of any sort. South Africa was the first nation to accuse the Zionists of Genocide thus upholding Human Rights and International Law. The EU/NATO conversely are abettors to the Genocide and have abused Human Rights for many decades/centuries. As for the Outlaw US Empire, it more than any nation has destroyed the post-WW2 UN-based global order through its wanton violation of the UN Charter on a daily basis along with its many Genocides since WW2’s end. The authors have not just blinders on but are blindfolded when it comes to genuine post-WW2 history and the US Empire’s role in enslaving nations to dollar debt. Chinese responses to the survey were quite correct to name the Outlaw US Empire as its primary security threat. In the section on Russia, there’s a BigLie right at the start in summary point #2:

“Russia’s envisioned multipolar order, however, does not consider states as equals.”

As Lavrov and Putin have stated many times, the UN Charter says all states are equal in the UN system—none are special or exceptional—and all merit equal respect and rights. Sure, some states are civilizational states, but that doesn’t make them exceptional, which is what the author implies. And I could go on and shred most of what’s written on Russia as the author is clueless. And as we’ve seen from NATO/EU/Outlaw US Empire, all are clueless to a major degree when it comes to assessing the genuine state of the world and its post-WW2 history. The falsification of the past and belief in the new myths has made any sort of objective analysis an endangered species. We should expect another solid stream of excrement from Munich again this year.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!