Editor's note: Thomas O. Falk is a London-based political analyst and commentator. He holds a Master of Arts in international relations from the University of Birmingham and specializes in U.S. affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The 58th Munich Security Conference (MSC) began in Munich on February 18. Official representatives of Russia are not participating this year. Western politicians keep to themselves and talk about the Russians instead of with them.

The world's most important meeting of experts on security policy takes place amid a precarious situation on the European continent. Now, one ought to think that a "security conference" would offer some degree of realism in the context of geopolitics.

However, after two days, the conference has failed to produce any coherent solutions or at least realistic suggestions on how to cease the crisis. Instead, we have been hearing about horror scenarios of war and the ongoing threat of sanctions ad nauseam, without any words about the Russian side of things, nor any mention of why precisely Ukraine seems so crucial for the West.  

After all, Ukraine is not a role model in Western economic or political values. Then, why are we interested, nonetheless? Influence. Increasingly, attempts are being made to integrate Ukraine into the West and isolate it from Russian influence.

By means of continuous military aid and, above all, the offer made by the U.S. during the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 to make Ukraine a NATO sooner rather than later, the West has been conducting an encirclement policy that Russian President Vladimir Putin, from the viewpoint of Russia's security, rejects.

Moreover, it remains somewhat ironic that the West continues to refer to the Paris Charter of 1990, which ceased the East-West conflict and established foreign policy principles such as the inviolability of borders, the renunciation of military force and free elections. However, what the latter ignores is the expansion of NATO that has occurred since then and, from a Russian perspective, makes the actual Paris Charter obsolete.

Interestingly enough, a memo from the British National Archives that has surfaced supports the Russian claim that the West violated promises made in 1990 with NATO's eastward expansion. This was reported a few days ago by the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

"We have made it clear that we will not expand NATO beyond the Elbe," German diplomat Juergen Chrobog wrote, according to the memo on a March 1991 meeting of the United States, Britain, France and Germany. This claim, of course, had previously been dismissed as Russian revisionist history. Needless to say, the memo did not find its way into the MSC. 

On February 19, the second day of the ongoing conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged relevant sides to adhere to the Minsk II agreement reached in 2015 and work out a roadmap and timetable to implement the deal, and questioned if an eastward NATO expansion would assure peace and stability.

The answer to this rhetorical question can currently be admired at the Ukrainian border. "Ukraine ought to be a bridge linking East and West, not a frontline," Wang advised. "All events have the fitting to lift their considerations, whereas the affordable considerations of Russia also need to be revered and heeded."

Indeed. But how can the world overcome the current crisis? It may not require much more than neutrality.

Instead of talking about Russia, the West should keep talking with Russia. And that means actually talking. Not the diplomatic charade that has taken place over the last few weeks and months, in which one met with Putin, but basically paid no attention to his view of things and wishes (e.g. security guarantees).

Most importantly, Ukraine must remain open to Western and Russian spheres of influence. It also means that Ukraine should be extremely cautious of whether to become a NATO member. The latter would be a crucial signal to the Kremlin that the West is inclined to correct course after decades of expansion.

The disregard for this approach and the lack of realism currently present in the West concerning the crisis is why it continues to be a threat. It is, therefore, time to put an end to the diplomatic charade seen in Munich and attempt an approach that is fair to both sides. 

After all, Russia, too, has the right not to see its security architecture threatened – a fact we tend to forget all too often in the West.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)