Wolfgang Ischinger, German diplomat

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger is one of Europe's most influential diplomats and a longtime chairman of the Munich Security Conference. Mr. Ischinger's experience in resolving international conflicts, participation in key peace negotiations, and deep understanding of transatlantic relations make his views on the current security situation particularly valuable.

In an interview with Ukrinform, he shared his assessments of the current geopolitical dynamics, the parameters of possible peace talks on Ukraine, and the prospects for European security amid global changes, and also outlined the themes of the Munich Security Conference 2026.

IT IS CRUCIAL THAT U.S., EUROPE, AND UKRAINE PRESENT A COMMON POSITION TO RUSSIA

- How would you characterize the current European and global security landscape? Are we approaching a new strategic reality, or is this an escalation of long-term trends we have ignored for too long?

- In my view, it is both: we are entering a new strategic reality shaped by two long-standing trends.

The first trend is Russia’s revisionist imperialism. Warning signs have been evident for many years—most notably since President Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007—and culminated in the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Europe must now acknowledge that war has returned to the continent and that Russia is currently a hostile and aggressive neighbor.

The second trend concerns burden sharing within the transatlantic relationship. This debate is not new; it dates back to the Cold War. However, recent U.S. administrations have raised this issue with greater urgency. Europe therefore needs to assume a more substantial role in its own security. That is what we are now doing: it includes increasing defense investments and deepening European security cooperation to achieve a more balanced and resilient transatlantic alliance.

- In your view, what conditions must be in place before meaningful peace negotiations regarding Ukraine can begin?

- President Putin is unlikely to engage in serious negotiations unless he is convinced that his objectives in Ukraine cannot be achieved militarily. For this reason, Europe should continue strengthening its support for Ukraine—both militarily, financially, and economically—while maintaining pressure on Russia’s war machinery through more effective sanctions enforcement and by considering the use of frozen Russian assets to assist Ukraine.

Any future peace agreement must also include credible safeguards to prevent renewed aggression. If NATO membership is not politically feasible in the short term, alternative measures should be explored—such as robust security guarantees, an international peacekeeping presence capable of deterring future attacks, or a “porcupine strategy” that ensures Ukraine is sufficiently armed to make any renewed aggression prohibitively costly.

Without such safeguards, there is a significant risk that any ceasefire would merely serve as an opportunity for Russia to regroup and prepare for another assault. If I were allowed to dream, I would dream of a unifiable agreement between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO to limit and massively reduce conventional arms on all sides.

- Do you consider Trump's plan viable? Or do you share the opinion of those who compare the current plan with the Munich Agreements of 1938?

- I believe the current contact line should serve as the basis for any future peace plan. Granting Russia additional territorial concessions or formally recognizing its annexations of Ukrainian land would encourage further aggression.

The leaked draft can be regarded as a preliminary working document, but it leaves several critical questions unanswered: What would “reliable security guarantees” for Ukraine mean in practice? How could the rights of Ukrainian media be safeguarded in Russia, a country that does not currently uphold media freedom? And who would ensure compliance with a demilitarized, neutral status in the part of Donetsk presently under Ukrainian control?

These and other issues will require careful clarification and thorough discussion among European and American partners before any such agreement could be considered viable.

- Is there a realistic diplomatic pathway that avoids rewarding aggression while still offering all parties a viable exit from the war?

- A diplomatic pathway is possible, but it requires sustained pressure on Russia.

Demonstrating to President Putin that his objectives cannot be achieved on the battlefield is essential to creating the conditions for serious diplomacy and a move away from maximalist goals.

This means European partners should continue providing robust support to Ukraine, both militarily and economically, while maintaining pressure on Russia’s economy.

At the same time, the diplomatic process must be carefully prepared and conducted. Rather than announcing peace plans publicly without prior consultation with Ukraine and European partners, it is crucial that the United States, Europe, and Ukraine develop a common position that can be presented jointly to Russia.

Establishing a permanent contact group for Ukraine could play an important role in ensuring coordination and coherence throughout this process.

- What lessons from other conflict resolution processes might be applicable to the Ukrainian context?

- As Germany’s chief negotiator at the Dayton Peace Talks in 1995, I vividly recall how the United States and European allies worked tirelessly to ensure their positions were closely aligned, enabling them to engage the parties with a united front.

Today, NATO allies and Ukraine would hugely benefit from adopting a similarly coordinated approach.

EUROPE SHOULD REMAIN OPEN TO DIALOGUE, BUT FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH

- How do you assess the current state of international support for Ukraine, both politically and militarily? Do you see risks that war fatigue in the West could undermine long-term strategic commitments?

- There is indeed a risk, even if I hesitate to use the term “war fatigue” in reference to Western societies. Ultimately, it is Ukraine and its people who bear the daily suffering of this war and who can rightfully claim exhaustion.

It is therefore essential that political leaders in Europe clearly communicate to their citizens that supporting Ukraine is not an act of charity, but a fundamental investment in our own security. When people are engaged openly and on equal terms, many understand that assistance to Ukraine is crucial.

- Which developments of the past months and weeks do you consider the most consequential for the European security architecture in general?

- One concerning development is Europe’s relative absence, yet again, from peace negotiations involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine.

Europe was caught off guard by the 28-point draft plan and had to scramble to formulate an alternative. This raises the question: why did European states not proactively prepare their own proposals earlier?

Europe should seize the initiative and present its own ideas for a just and sustainable peace.

Another development worth noting is rising tensions between the United States and Venezuela, alongside statements suggesting a renewed U.S. focus on the Western Hemisphere. While the implications remain unclear, this shift could mean reduced U.S. political and military bandwidth for European security and support for Ukraine. Europeans must prepare for this possibility.

- How should Europe balance deterrence and dialogue in dealing with revisionist powers?

- As during the Cold War, deterrence and dialogue are two sides of the same coin.

Europe should remain open to dialogue—but always from a position of strength. To achieve this, Europe must invest heavily in defense and security, deepen cooperation among its states, and draw lessons from Ukraine’s invaluable battlefield experience and innovations.

OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO HOSTILE STRATEGIES MUST BE STRENGTHENED

- How are the recent geopolitical shifts shaping the agenda of the upcoming Munich Security Conference? Which topics will receive heightened attention this year compared to previous conferences? Do you expect Ukraine to remain the central theme?

- We are still in the process of crafting the agenda for the upcoming MSC.

However, European security will be a central item on our agenda, as in previous years, and that – of course – includes Ukraine.

As always, we will cover a broad range of topics ranging from traditional security issues such as armed conflicts around the world to broader challenges such as food, climate, technology, energy, and economic security.

- How is the Conference adapting to a world in which security threats are increasingly interconnected — from cyber and hybrid attacks to energy security and global supply chains?

- This interconnectedness is not new, and we have reflected it in the MSC’s agenda for several years.

What is new, however, is the intensity and scale with which Russia combines different elements to destabilize the European security order. Our ability to respond to these hostile strategies must be strengthened. This requires a stronger focus on holistic approaches and deeper strategic thinking about what deterrence means in a hybrid context.

- Are you optimistic that the international community can rebuild trust and effective dialogue in the coming years?

- The challenges facing the international community are immense, from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the rest of Europe, to the consequences of AI, and to climate change.

I remain confident that we can overcome those challenges. The Munich Security Conference will continue to serve as a platform for senior international decision makers on how to address these pressing issues, and how to make the world a safer place.

Olga Tanasiychuk, Berlin

Photos provided by the author