Transcript _ On the 2026 Munich Security Conference with Alexander Gabuev,director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center - duration 35:15 -February 19, 2026

 

TR

2026 Munich Security Conference Reflects Troubled Transatlantic Ties | Alexander Gabuev

Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

3.25K subscribers

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 

views

Feb 19, 2026

Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, talks to Eilish Hart about the mood at the 2026 Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech and its reception, and other developments at the forum—as well as the results of a war game simulating an attack by Putin on NATO. 0:00 Intro 1:18 The Mood at the 2026 Munich Security Conference 6:16 How Putin Might (Successfully?) Attack NATO 14:06 Merz and Macron’s Speeches and Their Target Audience 20:43 Rubio’s Speech and Its Reception 26:56 The U.S. and the Ukraine Peace Talks 31:26 Was Russia on the Agenda in Munich? Follow Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center: Facebook -   / carnegierussia   Twitter - https://x.com/CEIP_Politika Bluesky - https://bsky.app/profile/ceip-politik... Substack - crec.substack.com LinkedIn -   / carnegie-russia-eurasia   Telegram - t.me/CarnegiePolitikaEn

Transcript

Follow along using the transcript.

Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

3.25K subscribers

Videos

About

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube (Russian)

Transcript

0:00

Hello and welcome back to Carnegie Politica from the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin. I'm Isish Hart

0:06

and today I'm speaking with Alexander Gabouv, the director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and a top expert

0:12

on Russia's foreign policy. Good to see you Sasha. Hi Alish, it's great to be with you.

0:18

So, you're joining us after spending the weekend at the 2026 Munich Security Conference, which is a leading forum for

0:26

dialogue about international security policy, and it tends to focus on Europe and transatlantic relations. I remember

0:34

last year the biggest news that came out of the conference was a hostile speech by US Vice President JD Vance, who

0:41

attacked America's European allies for their policies on free speech and migration. And then this year's

0:47

conference came on the heels of last month's World Economic Forum in Davos, which was dominated by discussions about

0:54

Greenland as US President Donald Trump threatened and then backed down from potential military action against

1:00

Denmark, a NATO ally. And I also noticed that the 2026 Munich Security Report,

1:07

which is meant to serve as a conversation starter for the conference itself, was titled Under Destruction in

1:14

a reference to the current state of the international order. So Sasha, my first

1:20

question for you is what was the mood like among European leaders heading into this year's Munich Security Conference?

1:27

most European officials uh some political leaders I had a chance to

1:34

speak to at the conference uh and there are a lot of people who represent kind

1:40

of the broader mood that's the uh European blob to use uh Ben Rhodess term

1:47

for uh DC beltway community uh of course uh it's impossible to talk to everybody

1:55

but if you have a sample big enough you understand more or less where uh where the consensus is although there are

2:02

various school of thoughts uh around some of the most thorny issues and that's where the nerf the policy debate

2:08

is I think that people went worried about the state of the transatlantic

2:14

relationship with a clear realization that this relationship has moved beyond

2:21

the point of recognition or return to the pre Trump 2.0 consensus and even

2:29

Trump uh 1.0 seems like a more conventional presidency than uh anything

2:38

what we've seen in the first year of this US administration. Uh the Europeans understand that the uh rupture is

2:45

happening and I think everybody is uh quoting Mark Carney's speech at Davos

2:51

that okay it's not a transition anymore. uh it is a rupture not only for the

2:57

global order but for the transatlantic ties uh people say that it's absolutely

3:04

unclear whether normaly or the order uh the state of affairs that the Europeans

3:10

used to will ever come back uh if and one there is a new president in the

3:16

white house in 2028 that uh the next three years will do

3:21

even more damage or change to this nature of transatlantic relationship. Uh

3:28

US role in the world is evolving and so is uh its role in Europe. Um and this is

3:36

why the Europeans will finally need to act in order to bring strategic

3:42

autonomy. And I think that the dominating school of thought is that

3:48

everybody should act calm, try to not provoke the United States, try to keep

3:54

them uh close and not alienate it. Try to not attack President Trump who takes

4:02

a lot of uh attacks very personally. try to uh demine or make conflicts around I

4:10

want Greenland, you know, pay up another 30% of tariffs because I'm happy with this or that calmly and try to resolve

4:19

it without litigating in front of the cameras. So, doing that behind the closed doors and at the same time

4:25

quietly preparing for uh Europe that's much more less uh influenced and

4:32

dependent on America. Uh I think that's where many of the large countries are.

4:38

Uh Germany, France as exemplified in the speeches of of their leaders. Uh Miloney

4:46

in Italy is also there like there is a difference in style and tone but that's where many uh large countries are

4:53

heading. Uh there is another school of thought which says oh forget about it like we will never be fully sovereign

5:00

without the US. So we just need to you know make the accept the deal that will

5:06

be imposed on us by the Americans and it's a new deal where they want to drive uh a harder bargain on us but like there

5:12

is no other way as to pay up uh our fair share and do what we we've been told. uh

5:19

and then there is a minority of countries that say oh wait a minute but

5:25

then if there are other you know considerations in the United

5:30

States why are we then so hostile to other global power centers particularly

5:35

to our neighbor Russia and then to China so let Europe uh be uh conducting an

5:42

open door policy uh and to hedge our bats between these three great military

5:47

powers but that's Of course, it's very clear which countries I'm talking about. It's Hungary. It's Slovakia to an extent

5:54

to an extent the new Czech government. Uh and I think that there is a very

6:00

active debate in Europe. Uh and Europe is a drift. So the old order is over.

6:07

The new order has not been emerged and we are uh in this very volatile and

6:13

dangerous stage of transition. I'm going to come back to the speeches in a minute, but first you told me

6:20

before we started recording that another conversation starter in Munich was a war

6:25

game that you took part in in back in December and it was simulating a Russian invasion of NATO. Can you talk a bit

6:32

about this experience and why it provoked so much discussion? Sure, happy to. Uh this was the first

6:40

policy game that was public uh or results have been published and turned

6:47

into a product that's publicly digestible to inform the public

6:52

discussion involving all of the citizens uh conducted in Germany since guess when

6:57

Alish which year? Not 2022. [laughter] 22 no 1927.

7:06

Whoa. Okay. Okay, I was way off. [laughter] The first in 100 years. So, of course,

7:12

Germans do wargaming. They do it behind the closed doors. uh governments and um

7:18

various uh think tanks, non-governmental organizations, but this time around uh

7:24

built uh one of the largest uh German media, part of Ax Springer group and the

7:31

German wargaming center uh part of the Bundesphere, the German armed forces did

7:37

this game. uh it was mostly focused on how Germany will react to an acute

7:43

security crisis in Eastern Europe. So the primary task of the uh exercise was

7:50

to test the Germany uh the German reaction. Uh hence the German team was nine people strong with the former uh

7:58

head of the armed forces, couple of former ministers, former senior government officials, sitting MP from

8:05

the ruling party and the second largest uh party, the social democrats in the

8:12

coalition. Uh and like that was a pretty solid simulation because of the

8:17

membership of the German group. Uh I was head of the rat team. Uh so I was unfortunately playing Vladimir Putin

8:24

which was a very weird experience personally. Uh I had a very good uh team

8:30

with Fran Stefan Gadi uh military expert from Austria who travels to the front

8:35

lines in Ukraine a lot with my Carnegie colleague Mike Kaufman and Aron for Lauren Hannen who is a German retired

8:43

diplomat and uh former deputy head of the German intelligence service. So the

8:49

scenario we've been given is that uh ceasefire in Ukraine is reached in

8:55

spring 2026. Uh Russia starts its charm offensive in

9:00

Europe and particularly Germany promising to turn up cheap gas and uh

9:06

unlock bilateral investment flows. Uh Russia asks uh Lithuania to uh increase

9:14

volumes of shipments for uh food and u various uh medical uh goods to Kenrad

9:23

and Lithuania is afraid that it's going to be pretext for invasion. So it uh

9:28

says no. And then Russia starts a sabotage campaign around Lithuania. It

9:34

starts to harass the German brigade station in Lithuania with this information. Conducts a large military

9:41

exercise, leaves around 15,000 troops behind in Barus and Keningrad. And then

9:48

uh a week before US midterms, the German coun chancellor uh assembles his uh

9:55

government and his national security team because there are reports that the Russian forces on the border of

10:01

Lithuania are in combat formations. So that's where the the exercise started.

10:07

And what we did, we decided that our strategic goal is to split NATO and to do uh a military operation that would

10:16

stay below article 5 and to show that NATO can be split, that NATO is hollow,

10:22

and that article 5 doesn't apply equally to all member states. And for that uh my

10:29

defense chief developed a very sophisticated 12-page long uh military doctrine uh that envisaged us uh

10:39

establishing foreign control over the Lithuanian part of the so-called Svalki gap like a tiny strip of 65 kilometers

10:47

between Russian exclave of Kenigrad and Bellarus. uh and then there are uh Lithuania and

10:53

Poland which is 65 kilometers separating uh Russia and Belarus. So we use drones

11:01

to establish foreign control even without moving into this uh territory of NATO. We then also use drones to

11:08

remotely mine the border between Poland and Lithuania in order to uh make sure

11:14

that it would be very difficult for Polish forces to come to Lithuania's rescue if they chose to. And we also

11:20

signal to Poland that we are not interested in uh expanding our control over to Polish sovereign territory. And

11:27

then after having done that, we rushed uh to size a town of Marample in the

11:34

middle like a very important logistical note. uh we claimed that this is a humanitarian corridor that we are only

11:40

bringing food and medicine to impoverished people of Kalingraat and we

11:46

immediately established contact with Donald Trump's administration and said that you know we're not seeking war we

11:51

going to back home as soon as we get this resolved and we should establish a new European security architecture that

11:58

prevents this crisis from happen we really want to save the world and help Donald Trump to save the world one uh

12:04

one week before the midterms And then the US said like okay there is a diplomatic path we don't want to get

12:09

involved militarily. They instructed supreme allied commander uh of NATO who

12:16

is an American general to not activate defense plans for the eastern flank uh

12:21

and to not use any kinetic measures to evict the Russians. And then like the

12:26

remaining three days of the game the German team was reacting. The German

12:32

team was trying to do a lot of stratcom, reassure the population, do a lot of

12:37

civil protection measures, trying to prepare Germany for incoming Russian invasion, but not doing anything

12:44

meaningful to evict the Russian invaders. And at the end I think uh the

12:49

lessons learned were that for the Russians the temptation might be there and the most dangerous moment for

12:56

European security is between when the gallons fall silent in Ukraine and uh

13:01

the time when Europe is armed enough and trained enough to really deter potential

13:07

Russian excursion. uh and that once America is out of the picture for

13:12

whatever reason, all other allies become really very territorial calculating and

13:18

they don't have proper structures and channels to coordinate their response if NATO channels are blocked by an American

13:25

veto. So that was uh really eye opening for some and yes in real life of course

13:33

intelligence would give NATO leaders and German leaders a lot of lead time because they will probably know about

13:39

the Russia moves uh so they would have time to prepare and debate and uh craft

13:44

a better response. However, you cannot discount that the Russians could create an element of of surprise um and that

13:52

this disunityity is for now a feature. So the Europeans really need to work hard in order to prepare uh deter the

13:59

Russians and u avoid the war. So that was very much discussed in Munich as

14:05

well. Okay, that gives me a nice segue into my next question. So Germany's chancellor

14:10

Friedrich Mertz and France's president Emanuel Macron both spoke on the first day of the conference and they hit a lot

14:18

of the same notes. So they talked about European unity and defense and they talked about making Europe stronger

14:24

geopolitically. What did you make of their messaging and who was the target audience? Was it

14:30

Vladimir Putin or was it Donald Trump? Their primary audience was really

14:36

domestic uh and European. They wanted to show leadership at the time when uh the

14:44

established order is in flux and a lot of voters, businesses, members of the

14:52

bureaucracy elite uh are really worried about future of Europe because the US

14:58

presence in Europe was the bedrock of security. US was doing the heavy lifting

15:04

in providing security for other NATO partners. uh increasingly contentious

15:10

relationship in trade, technology and finance with the United States also

15:15

undermines the health of European economy. Uh and uh potential

15:22

American interference in the European politics is also something that gives people a lot of concerns. For example,

15:29

US Secretary of State Mark Rubio after finishing his visit to Munich went

15:34

straight to Budapest, capital of Hungary, where he de facto has supported

15:40

uh Prime Minister Victor Orban who is campaigning for reelection but is challenged by the pro-Uropean opposition

15:47

and he represents obviously uh more nationalist nivist forces. Uh so he

15:53

campaigned on his behalf saying that this is a guy whom American president uh and the whole bag movement like and want

16:00

to be reelected by the Hungarian people. So uh what do you do about that? Uh and

16:06

of course all eyes are in Europe in European Union are on Emanuel Macron and

16:13

Frizz as leaders of the two largest economy. Well, Emanuel Macron is a

16:18

leader that uh is uh coming to a end of his second uh term and he will not be uh

16:26

reelected. uh Fred has just secured uh a mandate last year and is governing a

16:34

coalition has a very bold reform agenda has a lot of fiscal space because uh the

16:40

German Bundesto the parliament has removed the debt so-called debt break uh

16:45

over ability to issue more debt to finance uh some of German's pressing

16:50

needs uh particularly in defense and security uh and that's where everybody

16:56

looks what these two leaders will will say and both of their speeches were kind of version of Mark Carney's speech that

17:04

you know the old order is over and we need to establish new one they were both

17:09

uh advocating for stronger more autonomous Europe that would not seek a

17:14

divorce with the United States that would seek uh pragmatic partnership and that would understand that the Europeans

17:21

will need to do more in terms of uh heavy lifting paying their fair share

17:27

share of uh common expenses particularly on defense but at the same time said

17:32

that we don't share this uh cultural

17:37

narrative and cultural wars that President Trump is having within the US with his MAGA movement and all of the uh

17:45

criticism of the Democratic party and that that doesn't belong to Europe like they don't want to take sides in that

17:51

and they don't want this rhetoric to be here so uh translate it into play in

17:57

English. We also don't want you to use this cultural wars uh to interfere in

18:03

our domestic politics. We will handle our domestic issues be it migration, be

18:08

it our policy towards climate change on our own. But at the same time, we want to be allies. We want to be friends. Uh

18:16

and we want to, you know, help you to address some of the most pressing issues. And I think that both drove a

18:22

message home that you know uh if the US leadership doesn't consider Russia a

18:28

strategic challenge think twice. Russia definitely is we perceive it as a

18:34

challenge and that's why we're going to arm uh our nations and Europe in order

18:39

to be able to deter uh Russians. Uh so I guess that this was domestic messages. This was also a message to the United

18:45

States and uh there were parts of the speeches that you know were aimed at

18:51

Vladimir Putin uh both speeches and Q&A afterwards and I think that Emanuel M

18:58

said that well uh now it's probably time to resume high level political dialogue

19:04

with Russia because in order to bring the horrible war in Ukraine to an end

19:10

you really need to talk to the belligerent and Europeans will need to be at the table. And since Russians,

19:17

Americans, and Ukrainians are talking to each other like the day we record uh in Geneva uh on Tuesday, well, Europeans

19:25

need to be at the table and they also need to start their channels uh to Russia and like you need to agree on

19:32

what the message is, but nevertheless, that's the way forward. And then uh Chancellor Mera was remarkably of

19:37

different opinion. He said that well uh this war will end one way or another uh

19:46

at some point but in order to bring it to an end like it's really in the hands

19:51

of the Russians to end this war because they started it's very clear that they are the aggressor and in order to

19:58

discuss uh the end of the war and the post uh war order in Europe you need

20:04

Vladimir Putin be willing to talk make concessions and negotiate ates with a

20:10

bidine intention to reach a different end state and for that Russia needs to

20:16

be weakened. Russia really needs to be brought to the negotiation table and now

20:22

he doesn't want to talk. He wants to buy time imitate diplomacy and just keep

20:27

Trump close and not angry. So Russia will need to be weakened further

20:33

militarily and economically in order to start to negotiate in the goodwill. So now it's not the time for the European

20:39

lutters to talk to Vladimir Putin. You mentioned US Secretary of State

20:45

Marco Rubio who was representing Washington at the conference and the speech he gave seemed much more

20:52

consiliatory than Vice President Vance's remarks last year which were very much

20:57

in this kind of culture war tone. Um Rubio said that the United States and

21:03

Europe belong together. He discussed revitalizing transatlantic relations. To

21:09

what extent was Rubio's speech a departure from the Trump administration's usual rhetoric toward

21:15

Europe and NATO? And how did the Europeans react to his remarks?

21:21

Again, it's very difficult to speak for everybody in the room and in broader

21:26

European policy community uh and the leaders. uh you saw that uh his speech

21:33

was met by a standing ovation uh led by Vulvin Ishinger uh very uh respected

21:41

retired German diplomat who's the chairman of the conference at former uh German ambassador to the United States

21:48

uh and a lot of people stand up and clapped including EU foreign policy high

21:54

representative uh Kaakalas um at the same time uh everybody I have

22:02

spoken to and you see that in European press with kind of very informed

22:07

Germanies who were just doing this rounds and asking people what do you think about Rubio's speech. Uh I think

22:13

that the view was that okay the tone is much more welcome and it's clear that the US wants to change the tone of the

22:20

conversation into a more friendly and respectful not lecture the Europeans on anything but at the same time the ask is

22:29

more or less the same uh and it's an ask of uh a really transformed role of the

22:36

US in the world and the US in transatlantic relationship not only that

22:41

the European Europeans will need to pay up their fair share of defense expenditures. And that's been a message

22:47

consistent across multiple administration starting with Republicans under George W. Bush, Obama wanted

22:53

Europeans to do more for their defense, uh Trump in his first term, then Biden,

23:00

and now Trump 2.0. And everybody would admit that, okay, if we commit 5% of GDP

23:06

to defense, that's good. That's actually what we need to do. So thanks Donald Trump. But at the same time uh Rubio's

23:14

message was that you know we want to build a new civilization a project with

23:19

the common west that resembles much more west of the 19th century but without uh

23:25

interf family fights uh that's not based on uh ideas of globalism of outsourcing

23:34

uh some of your production and destrumentalization globalization of supply chain

23:41

uh it's not based on uh obsession about

23:46

climate change. Uh it's not built on open borders policy and it's not built

23:52

on university universal nature of human rights. So uh it will be the west that's

23:59

much more united and much more hierarchical with the US as the top dog.

24:05

uh it will be the west that has that's much less tolerant to migration uh

24:12

because migration threatens the foundation of the western civilization. Uh it's the west that's much more

24:18

committed to its own Christian roots. So there is a religious uh spiritual

24:23

element to that. Uh it's the west that's not ashamed of its past be it colonial

24:29

or war in Iraq and so on. It's just not apologizing for that all the time.

24:35

uh and it's a west that imposes its will through its power rather than through

24:41

reliance on set of multilateral institutions like the United States or international law and I think that

24:48

message goes really in many aspects deeply against the European project that

24:54

is very much normative that cherishes the rules that cherishes international

25:00

law and that says like yeah we want to have the muscle But not in order to impose our will on

25:06

others, but in defense of these rules that allow weaker countries like many of

25:12

the European countries are compared to the United States or China or Russia to

25:17

thrive. Uh and a lot of Western societies are quite secular. Uh a lot of

25:24

them are quite uh open to uh migrants although that's also a heated debate uh

25:31

inside Europe. And this imposition of MAGA foreign policy agenda is seen like

25:37

support of a political uh constituency in Europe represented by the far right alternative futand in Germany or

25:46

national in France. Uh and that is seen again as a more subtle uh and more

25:55

polite but also investment into the approach that Vance outlined. very final

26:00

point here. Uh people welcome the change of tone, but they also realize that if

26:07

President Donald Trump tomorrow wakes up and says, you know what, I still want Greenland and actually I'm going to get

26:13

it and I got to get it before the midterms and I got to get it if you don't give it to me by military force.

26:19

You cannot buy an insurance against that outcome. no amount of secretary general

26:27

of NATO Maruto massaging Trump ego you know and talking with him uh will 100%

26:34

give you a 100% insurance that scenario like that doesn't materialize uh same with tariffs same with Trump's anger

26:42

about this and that so I guess that everybody realizes that the relationship

26:48

with uh the US is really in a transformative phase and Europeans need

26:53

to double down on preparation. Ukraine's president Wimir Zilinski also

26:58

gave a speech in Munich and he of course focused on Russia's war against his

27:04

country. Uh with regard to the ongoing peace talks, he said that the US is mainly pushing Ukraine and not Russia to

27:10

make concessions and he noted that Europe has been sidelined in these negotiations.

27:15

Um, I also couldn't help but notice that Rubio didn't explicitly mention Russia in his own speech. And while he held a

27:22

meeting with Silinski on the sidelines of the conference, he skipped another meeting on Ukraine with European

27:28

leaders, citing a scheduling conflict. What did these events in Munich reveal

27:33

about the current state of the US push to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine? Because this has been ongoing

27:39

for about a year now. I think that Secretary Rubio was pretty direct uh

27:46

that uh first he is not involved in the negotiation so he doesn't want to

27:53

comment on all of the details so he's not as involved as uh uh president's

27:59

son-in-law Jared Kushner or his special envoy Steve Wedkov. Uh, and I guess that

28:05

since everybody in the Trump administration is siloed and assigned a certain area of work for the president,

28:13

uh, you don't want to cross that much into territory that's covered by other

28:18

members of Trump's team, particularly his relatives and personal friends, uh,

28:24

too much. And although Rubio is involved both as secretary of state as national security adviser because he has this two

28:31

hats since firing of Mike Walls who was moved to position of the US ambassador to the UN. Uh he is very careful in

28:38

that. So for example, Russia never featured in his main speech uh as a

28:44

threat and he didn't speak about war in Ukraine at length in the speech and was

28:50

only pushed to make a comment by people asking u those questions. Uh so I guess

28:57

uh that's where uh like really big uh difference is. So uh apart from not

29:06

being maybe as involved as um Witov and Kushner into this negotiations uh Rubio

29:13

also said that he personally is skeptical because he doesn't see President Putin negotiating in good

29:21

faith. So he hopes that the negotiation uh will be resolved and will end in

29:26

peace but uh nobody should expect that happening automatically.

29:32

And he also said that well uh the US is probably trying to seek peace but at the

29:39

same time it has never stopped delivering weapons to Ukraine while others are now paying for that. Uh the

29:45

US has applied sanctions against Russia including on President Trump's watch and these were powerful sanctions against

29:51

Ross Neft and Luke oil two largest Russian oil producers. Uh the US

29:57

continues to share intelligence with Ukraine and support its armed forces. So

30:02

with that he said well our approach is still consistent. We are supporting Ukraine. At the same time, we seek this

30:08

peace resolution for dialogue with Russia where we want to talk uh as an intermediary but from position of

30:14

strength. Um I think that this is a big departure from the previous administration's approach where Biden

30:21

was the leader of coalition enabling Ukrainian resistance. So now the US moves into role of intermediary uh and

30:28

is not writing checks uh for Ukraine which I think is a big disadvantage for K. At the same time, the worst hasn't

30:37

happened so far. The US has not fully walked away from the war effort and has

30:42

not taken away all the tools that it provides for Ukrainian defense. So, it's

30:48

not ideal, but it's again not the end of the world. And now the bold is really in

30:53

European court because they need to substitute American involvement. They cannot do that across the board. They

30:59

cannot provide intelligence that's so vital. uh they cannot uh provide uh in

31:05

interceptors for ballistic missiles like Patriot systems and uh interceptors for

31:10

Patriots. But nevertheless, they have now taken over the financial burden of supporting Ukraine. They're pumping a

31:16

lot of money into Ukrainian defense industrial base and they are also providing a lot of weapons. So not ideal

31:24

but manageable for Ukraine. Against the backdrop of the conference this weekend,

31:29

five European countries revealed that the late Russian opposition leader Alexe Nalli was killed using a rare toxin

31:36

derived from a poisonous frog. And they directly accused Russia of violating the chemical weapons convention. With so

31:44

much of the focus in Munich on transatlantic relations and European security and relations, did this help

31:51

bring Russia and the domestic situation there back into the conversation? Thank you for that question. I guess that uh

31:58

Russia never disappeared from the conversations and uh Russia was all the time there in the context of horrible

32:06

war that it wages against Ukraine. So uh there have been two sessions at least

32:11

where state of Russia per se was discussed. One was attended by my great colleague Katina Schulman. uh other

32:18

hosted by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs uh was featuring me but since it was Chattan House I cannot really share

32:26

uh what was discussed but those of you who follow Cardi's work uh on Russia uh

32:33

read uh my colleague Alexander Vapena's excellent column in the economist the

32:38

other day or read uh my excellent colleague Mike Kaufman's dispatch on what's happening in the war in year five

32:45

uh in foreign affairs know where we are in in assessment. Uh so that's what we

32:51

shared with the Munich participants and uh senior policy makers. Um so the

32:57

interest is there and the interest is how the war is going, what's actually

33:02

happening in Russia, where are the weak points, where can the west really press to make Putin climb down this escalation

33:11

ladder and ultimately finish the war. And then there is some conversation picking up about building a relationship

33:18

with Russia when the war is over and particularly when Vladimir Putin is out of the picture. But that's only uh a

33:24

very beginning of this conversation. uh Alex Navani of course was very much in

33:31

people's mind or those policy makers who follow Russia closely uh announcement of

33:37

him being killed or at the time it was established that he is dead like it was not 100% clear that he was killed by the

33:45

Russian authorities uh was delivered during the Munich security conference two years ago and that was shocking

33:52

um I guess this time around it was a topic that people discussed far less

33:58

because of two years of the ugly war. People talk much more about uh large

34:04

Ukrainian cities pounded by Russian missiles and drones every day and people

34:09

sitting without electricity and heating much more than they talk about the fate of Alex Navali and that's also I think

34:16

absolutely understandable and correct but nevertheless uh some leaders

34:21

acknowledged his uh sacrifice and that he stood to represent a different

34:27

Russia. Five European governments have issued statements on that day that he

34:32

was indeed poisoned uh and not just died of natural causes and uh his uh widow

34:39

Ula Naval and her team was present there. She was speaking at some panels.

34:45

So that was a symbol that uh Europe wants to engage with Russians who are

34:51

opposed to war and uh that's symbolized by the figure of Halis Mali. Okay, thank

34:58

you Sasha. I think that's all we have time for today. Thank you so much for sharing your insight. Thank you so much. It was great being

35:04

with you. That was Alexander Gaby, the director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. If

35:09

you enjoyed this conversation, let us know by liking or sharing this video or leaving us a comment. And don't forget

35:15

to subscribe for more expert interviews like this one. I'm Isish Hart and we'll see you next time on Carnegie Politica.