When Russian ruler Vladimir Putin delivered his infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 in which he denounced a "unipolar world" as a threat, many regarded his words as a provocation rather than a genuine attempt to reshape the world order.

Yet Munich 2007 has gone down in history as the beginning of a new era. Russian tanks rolled into Georgia just a year later, and into Ukraine’s Crimea seven years after that. And 2022 opened the door to a full-scale war against Ukraine – one that has already reshaped the security architecture, at least on the European continent.

In 2025, another alarming speech resounded from the same stage. This time it was US Vice President JD Vance, who accused European governments of suppressing free speech, referring to censorship, persecution of believers, and attempts to silence dissent.

This was a clear sign of a new chapter in EU-US relations. The leadership of the country that until recently was Europe’s biggest partner is increasingly inclined towards isolationism. It may rethink its support for Ukraine in the coming years, as well as its involvement in collective security.

We met with Benedikt Franke, CEO of the Munich Security Conference, the world’s most important forum for discussing security and geopolitics, on the sidelines of this year’s NATO summit in The Hague.

Franke is not just a manager. He has served as a strategic adviser to the German government and previously worked at the UN, where he was personal assistant to Kofi Annan.

His understanding of global security is shaped not by newspaper headlines, but by regular engagement with world leaders and their advisers.

We talked to Franke about the current phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the West’s Ukraine fatigue, the collapse of trust in international institutions – and about hope. Why despite the current geopolitical chaos, Franke sees Ukraine’s victory in this gruelling war as a realistic goal – and what needs to be done to achieve it.

Photo: MSC/Kuhlmann

"I don't believe we are close to a new world war"

You are responsible for the most influential conference on security. How do you feel right now with all the threats? Now we have Ukraine, now we have the Middle East – Israel and Iran. How would you describe the current situation in global security as CEO of the Munich Security Conference? 

You know, very directly: not good. The situation is not good, and there is a conflict overload. And unfortunately, all the conflicts seem to reinforce each other. They're all somewhat connected. And hence solving one of them isn't good enough. 

We need to get much better at solving all of them, which obviously is a mammoth task and incredibly difficult. I'm worrying that the multitude of conflicts means that every single one is overshadowed by the sum of the others. 

Meaning that now, you know, we are here at the NATO capital [the interview was recorded in The Hague – ed.], we should be speaking about Ukraine. But we will also have to be speaking about Iran and Israel, probably. And we must do everything we can to ensure that Ukraine doesn't get forgotten, and that we remember that Putin is our biggest threat at the moment. 

[BANNER1]

For Europe or for global security? 

I think Russia’s behaviour is at the centre of many global problems. He [Putin] is also the single biggest threat to Europe. 

Do you believe that we are close to a new world war? Do you believe that it's already coming? 

I don't believe that. I mean, yes, it's true that we are seeing a lot of conflict right now. It is true that we see a lot of problems, and it is also true that many of them are somewhat, as I said, connected, but that's not the same as a world war. 

In fact, the majority of countries across the globe aren't directly involved in any of the ongoing conflicts. 

We have, I think, one key problem, namely the decreasing role of the United Nations and other global governance mechanisms, which opens up the space for further deterioration, further fragmentation, further polarisation. And hence I believe the right way to approach all these conflicts is to do everything we can to strengthen the United Nations and to strengthen the international rules-based system, to include the Global South in whatever we are doing, to make sure that more countries have a stake again in multilateralism. If we fail in this task, all of the conflicts that we're seeing now will deteriorate.

But do you believe that it’s still possible to rebuild trust in these international institutions? Because, for example, we would answer that we don’t believe it’s possible to rebuild that trust.

I think there are too many countries like yours that have lost faith in the United Nations, faith in global governance mechanism, faith in multilateralism, because it hasn't delivered on its promises to you and others. 

Multilateralism should help solve problems, should help prevent war, should solve humanitarian disasters, and should be purely positive. We have slid slowly but surely into a situation where the United Nations is seen as overly politicised, as a tool for countries like Russia to stop initiatives, to veto them. I think there is absolutely no reason to believe in this kind of United Nations.

But that shouldn't stop us from trying to develop it, to reform it. I think we need to see a strong United Nations built on the principles that we've signed up to – the United Nations Charter – and a United Nations that is fit for purpose, meaning that it’s able to solve the problems of the 21st century. 

Remember, these institutions were created at the end of the 1940s to solve the problems of the time. They haven't been reformed since. So we really need to bring them into the new century and have them deal with the problems that we're facing today, and Ukraine is foremost among them. 

We are now in The Hague, which is also famous for the International Criminal Court. We’re also faced with the undermining of the role of the International Criminal Court. So the United Nations is not the only institution that has this problem with trust. So how do you see the situation, for example, with the question of impunity?

We are all hoping for the end of impunity. But what we are seeing is a return of impunity. And hence my point stands. We need to reinforce multilateral institutions, to reinforce institutions like the International Criminal Court. I believe that many countries in the West are deeply committed to that. Not all, unfortunately. Some strong and important countries are not convinced. 

And here too, the International Criminal Court has been politicised, and that's just wrong. It should be doing its work independently of political leanings and emotions. 

"People understand that Ukraine is a shield for Europe"

Do you feel that among other European leaders – because I know that you have access to various European leaders – do you feel that people are tired, do you have Ukraine fatigue?

I don't think there is Ukraine fatigue. I really don't think so. I do think there is a danger that other conflicts have overshadowed the urgency of the situation in Ukraine. 

I think everyone in the West wants Ukraine to succeed. We just need to get better at supporting you in doing so. 

So you're not talking now about winning this war, but succeeding. Why do we have this change in wording? 

I think that's the exact same thing.

[BANNER2]

What does victory for Ukraine mean to you personally?

Victory means defending your borders. Victory means getting your land back. Victory means even reparations for the horrible deeds that were committed on Ukrainian soil. The full reinstatement of Ukraine that the Ukrainian people wants to see. So I don't think there is a difference. 

I'm not a big fan of mincing words or of changing the narrative. I do believe that it is in all our interest to see Ukraine winning this war. 

I'm originally from Crimea, and I remember how nobody took what happened in Crimea in 2014 seriously. And then the full-scale invasion happened, and now, of course, Europe is taking it more and more seriously because this is about Europe's defence and Europe's security. Do you feel that European leaders also understand that Ukraine is now a shield for Europe? 

Yes, in fact we had your foreign minister with us for dinner last night, and he made the point that for a little while after the attack, Ukraine was a security consumer; it has turned into a security producer. 

The experiences that it shares with its allies, the weapons that it is increasingly able to manufacture itself, the amount of battle-hardened and trained soldiers… All of us understand not just the sacrifice that Ukraine has made, but also the current and future contributions Ukraine can make. And so, yes, I think you're absolutely right that the debate is beginning to shift and people do understand that this is a shield. 

But we also see the dents in the shield. We see the cracks in the shield. I think we need to do even more to strengthen this shield. And I'm confident that despite the drama here, the Ukrainian delegation will leave with some very concrete results. 

Do you mean funding, procurement, or…? 

I do believe that you will see a readiness from the US to provide or allow for the purchase of additional Patriot batteries, which would already be a good next step.

(Note from UP: On 25 June, during a press conference following the NATO summit in The Hague, US President Donald Trump stated that he would look into the possibility of providing Ukraine with additional Patriot air defence systems, but emphasised that the United States also needs them.)

"Europe has woken up to the need to shoulder more of the burden of its own defence"

But Russia has strong allies, producing even drones, for example. Now they're switching from Iran to North Korea. And even European leaders do recognise that they can’t compete with Russia in producing weapons. So do you still believe it's possible that Europe could compete with Russia?

Yes, of course! Europe's economy is 25 times bigger than Russia’s. Can we stop over-exaggerating the power of Russia?

I do believe Russia is a serious power, but I also do believe that the facts speak a clear language, namely that Europe is in theory – and in many areas in practice – a lot stronger than Russia. And if we bring everything we have to bear in support of Ukraine, we can shift the balance on the battlefield. I'm convinced of that.

We are expecting an increase in the percentage of GDP that European countries will be spending on defence procurement. Do you believe this is achievable, and how much do you think it should increase in the near future? 

All the countries are increasing, not all by the same percentage, but all Allies have committed to reaching the 5%, made up of 3.5% for hard defence and 1.5% for resilience.

Do you believe it's possible to achieve these targets?

Of course it is possible. The German chancellor has just now said that we will achieve it by 2029. I think it will be hard work, but I think it's necessary. 

By the way, I think it should be possible for a country to spend 5% of its GDP on its own security in a world that is becoming more dangerous by the day. So I don't think it's unrealistic. 

So let's do everything we can to not just spend more, but to become more secure, less dependent, less vulnerable, become better allies and stick closer together. I think all of that is possible. And not for Trump – I mean, we shouldn't say we’re doing this for President Trump. We may be doing it because of President Trump and some of his pressures, but at the end of the day, we're doing it for us.

[BANNER3]

Do you think that Europe is ready to defend itself now after what has happened to the US’s geopolitical perspective and strategy?

I do believe that Europe has woken up to the need to shoulder more of the burden of its own defence. I do believe that Europe is ready to invest. I do believe that some European countries have found a new willingness to go ahead, including Germany, which is assuming a leadership role under Chancellor Merz. And I do believe very strongly that we've also woken up to the need to be a little less dependent on an increasingly unreliable United States. 

And what role should, for example, Germany play in this new geopolitical reality?

It should do whatever it can to hold the Alliance together. It should do whatever it can to support Ukraine. It should do whatever it can to lead by example, and it should do whatever it can to set that example. 

"It’s not for Russia to decide who joins NATO and who doesn’t" 

Do you feel that the leadership is changing in Europe – from its dependence on the US to a better understanding of its own strategy?

I see a notable change in Germany. I see Italy being very outspoken in favour of Ukraine and being very supportive. I see [UK Prime Minister] Keir Starmer being quite supportive. I see the Scandinavians and the Poles doing what they've been doing all along. 

So I do see even more willingness to do what is right. But I also see the cracks. I see the rise of the right wing across Europe. I see the rise of the left wing across Europe. I see an increasingly polarised society across Europe. So it is becoming ever more difficult for leaders to lead. But still, I think we have a window of opportunity now. 

I'm confident that we'll take a few good and sensible steps in the future. You don't look convinced.

No. We in Ukraine are still expecting a new Churchill to come, and the new Churchill will save all of us. So we have a lot of discussion going on. 

I've got many Ukrainian friends, and there are some expectations – and the foreign minister mentioned some of them yesterday – that are just unrealistic. China will not stop supporting Russia. India will not stop supporting Russia. And I mean, you guys keep talking about it as if it will happen. It won't! Forget about these things. Concentrate on the countries that stand with you and make it even easier for us to support you. I think the industry initiatives now are great. 

Do you think this will be enough to win this war? 

Yes.

So you believe that a united and strong Europe will prevail even when our strongest ally, the partner that the US used to be, steps down? 

Yes, and the US won't step down. It's not in their interest, and they haven't done it. 

And yes, we keep talking about President Trump. And you know, he hasn't.

Yes, the meeting in the Oval Office was difficult. Yes, there have been some issues around this NATO summit. But still, the US keeps supporting Ukraine. The US Senate keeps supporting Ukraine. The majority of the American people keep supporting Ukraine. 

I think we should just begin to shift the narrative a little, because if you keep asking whether they are still with you, at some point it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should really concentrate on creating clear paths to support. I think that the idea of producing Western weapons in Ukraine is great. Also the idea of creating Ukrainian weapons in the West is great. We see a lot of good things – can we double down on that rather than waste time asking "Is this guy with us? Is this guy with us?" Come on, let's get stuff done.

I understand, but it's difficult to believe in a bright future when you are in Kyiv and you're under attack, and that's why we are a little bit stressed about these things. Of course, we have a lot of strength and resilience, but at the same time, we are tired. 

So the question is not whether there is Ukraine fatigue, but whether there is fatigue in Ukraine. And maybe we have relied too much on your ability to maintain that fighting spirit.

[BANNER4]

No, we are ready, but at the same time we want others to be ready to be with us on this long road. It's not going to end tomorrow. And that's why I'm asking: do we still have enough partners to be able to protect ourselves? 

I don't think you've lost a single partner. I wouldn't know which one. Every country that I look at has supported you throughout the three and a half years and has vowed to continue. 

If it doesn't feel like that in Kyiv, that's one thing, but the numbers speak a different language. The support has gone up. The phrasings have become more outspoken. Look at Chancellor Merz, how outspoken he is. This is very different from before.

He even recognised that it was a big mistake that Merkel made during the NATO summit in 2008. Do you think we may have a discussion about this when this war is over – that the war started because Ukraine was not invited to join NATO in 2008?

I just think it won't be very helpful to have that discussion. Really, what will it change? We should really focus on winning and then rebuilding. And if not winning, then at least getting you into the strongest possible negotiation positions for whatever comes. We need to enable you to do what you think is right. 

I would really not waste a single second on theoretical discussions about whose fault it was, when and what caused it, and whether you'll be a member of NATO. Can we just get this thing over? 

And what’s your feeling – will Ukraine be part of NATO in the future? 

If it chooses to be, yes, I expect that it'll probably be first a member of the European Union. And it'll be a very welcome member of the European Union. 

First the European Union, and maybe then NATO? 

I'm all for Ukraine in NATO. That's my personal view. But I think we need to resolve this war first. And for that we need to do everything we can to help you to win. 

But it could also be Russia’s position that Ukraine will never be part of NATO. 

It is the decision of Ukraine whether it wants to be.

But not only Ukraine – the partners and Europe as well. And not only the European partners, but the US, for example.

Sure. But then the US needs to live with the truth that they stopped somebody who wants to be a member of NATO from being a member of NATO. We need to have a debate about that. 

But it's certainly not Russia's decision who becomes a member of NATO and who doesn't. 

The last question will be a philosophical one. What has surprised you the most since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war?

Positively – the enormous fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. Negatively – our inability within three and a half years to bring this war to an end collectively. And the fact that today we're at the exact same place where we were a year ago and two years ago. I wouldn't have thought that we would get stuck so badly. 

And we're losing our people. That’s the most tragic part. We can rebuild everything, but we can’t bring back people – the most prominent and passionate people. Thank you.

You are losing your best and Russia is losing its worst. That’s actually quite an important point. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks for coming. Slava Ukraini! (Glory to Ukraine!)

Glory to the heroes!

Sevğil Musaieva, Ukrainska Pravda