Advisor to Angela Merkel in foreign policy for twelve years, then ambassador to the United Nations (2017-2021), Christoph Heusgen now chairs the Munich Security Conference, a forum in which Western leaders meet to discuss issues of security and geopolitics. The 2022 edition took place from February 18 to 20, a few days before the Russian invasion. For L’Express, Christoph Heusgen looks back on those fateful days and the conflict that is entering its seventh week.
L’Express: After the massacre of Boutcha and other Ukrainian cities, the indignation continues to rise. All eyes are now on gas imports from Russia. Can we imagine that the Europeans, and in particular the Germans, put an end to these deliveries?
Christopher Heusgen: Many voices are raised to say that we should go even further. European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said we have enough gas to get through the winter and next summer. But in Germany, bosses and unions retort that it will be necessary to close companies if we reduce gas imports from one day to another. So people are afraid.
But in truth, we import not only gas from Russia, but also oil and coal. For these last two sources of energy, we can find alternatives. As for gas, it must be understood that the Russians have, in the short term, no outlet other than the West. They therefore remain very interested in selling it to Europeans! This situation should lead us to form a consortium of buyers and significantly lower the price we pay Russia for its gas.
The price difference should be placed in an escrow account which should be used to contribute to the reconstruction of Ukraine. All energy imports should be eliminated. The big loser will be Putin, who will never be able to regain his influence anyway. In the future, no one will trust him, as Joe Biden said when he came to Europe from March 23 to 26.
“Putin cannot stay in power,” said the American president. Do you agree ?
I am one of those who thinks the president chose the right words. By his aggression in Ukraine, Putin violated the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is nothing new – remember his support for Bashar al-Assad, who is a war criminal. Putin is also violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, not only by covering up Assad’s abuses, but by using chemical agents himself – against Sergei Skripal and Alexei Nawalny. He also flouted the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990), which nevertheless clearly lays down the principle of national sovereignty.
Finally, Putin violated the Budapest Memorandum (1994), which stated that Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and national integrity, if the latter gave up its nuclear weapons – which it did. A country as important as Russia cannot be ruled by an individual who systematically violates international laws. Furthermore, Putin is committing war crimes. Boutcha and other places testify to the murderous nature of his regime. Putin must be prosecuted. The International Criminal Court has initiated proceedings against Russia and the person responsible for these crimes, Vladimir Putin, must appear before this institution or before a special court. So, yes, Putin must leave power.
On February 18, six days before the Russian invasion, you presided over your first conference on security, in Munich, in the presence of the Ukrainian president and the American vice-president, Kamala Harris. How did you experience this moment?
I was deeply impressed by the unity that reigned in the western camp and beyond. Seeing this unanimity, I was convinced that the Russian president would not risk invading Ukraine. But we made a mistake. We have underestimated how isolated Putin has been over the past two years. He met no international leaders, with a few rare exceptions. He sat in his bunker ruminating on his ideology, convincing himself that Ukraine was not a real state, that these people had no national identity and that they would not defend themselves if the Russians entered. in the country. Finally, he believed that the international community would not be united, because no one had informed him.
“It was a terrible miscalculation”
Today, I don’t think he is happy with the situation. It didn’t get what it wanted militarily, its economy is in shambles and it is internationally isolated. It was a terrible miscalculation. And many people have to pay for this tyrant’s miscalculation.
Do you think Putin could attack NATO?
If his initial plan – to conquer Ukraine in 2 or 3 days – had worked, he might have felt strong enough to covet Moldova and Georgia and, why not, say to himself: “Kaliningrad is cut off from the heart of Russia, we have to connect it to the rest of the country”. But today, I can’t see him attacking Poland or Lithuania, because opposite, NATO and the United Nations would react very strongly. Although he lives in his bunker, Putin cannot be so stupid, especially when he sees the performance of his army…
Was Joe Biden wrong to tell Putin that NATO would never engage in Ukraine?
The message that Joe Biden wanted to convey is the following: “NATO is a defensive alliance. We do not intend to expand it further east. And besides, Ukraine is not a member of the NATO.” In retrospect, he could have allowed more ambiguity – but it’s always easier to judge after the fact. Similarly, Germany would never have developed the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipeline projects if it had known what would happen a few years later…
Did Germany sin by naivety?
At that time, the business world was very interested in Russia. For historical reasons, the Social Democratic Party also had a positive attitude towards Russia. His reasoning was: “The more business ties we build with the Russians, the better our relations will be.” Now they see what Putin did in Ukraine, they hear his talk about the so-called Ukrainian Nazis… Many left-wing Germans feel betrayed – like a friend who has mortally disappointed you. As a result, the German reaction is very strong. It is also nourished by the vision of those hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who have found refuge in Germany. The Germans realize that war is close to home. All this explains why they so quickly accepted the idea of releasing 100 billion euros to strengthen their defense. This measure received strong support from Parliament and public opinion.
Does the return of the Americans to Europe mean the end of European defense – an idea that has been much talked about in recent months? And what about the European strategic autonomy advocated by President Macron?
I think we are very lucky to have President Biden in power. If Donald Trump were in his place, who knows what would happen… That said, the United States has a lot of internal problems. They also said that they do not want to remain the policeman of the world and that their priority is China. From this perspective, the Americans cannot engage in the same way as in the past. The idea of European defense is therefore more important than ever. Although the notion of strategic autonomy remains very ambitious because we cannot do without the Americans, we must nevertheless be able to react to certain crises, such as the evacuation of Kabul airport at the end of August – depending on the protection American was very embarrassing.
Twenty years ago, I took part with Javier Solana, the first high representative of the European Union, in setting up the battlegroups (intervention groups). In reality, these have never been deployed in the field. At the end of March, the European executive announced the creation of a rapid intervention force of 5,000 men. I hope that we will soon have, next to NATO, a strong European defense under the leadership of the EU or an EU headquarters. It would be the life insurance of Europe.