Right after the G20 summit in London and the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Baden-Baden, the diplomats and foreign policy experts analyzed at the Allianz Cultural Foundation's invitation the security policy tasks with which Europe is faced in light of smouldering conflicts, the financial crisis, and international terrorism.

The panel was largely in agreement that mistakes had been made in the past by underestimating problems and missing opportunities. Supranational organizations failed in a number of ways, especially in crisis situations. Any time there was a need to correct individual wrong decisions by political figures acting alone, and thus to avert armed conflict, NATO, the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council had failed to take decisive control. But the experts fear that making changes will become a marathon haul through the offices of European regional administrations.

Parag Khanna believes it will be important for "individual organizations to be assigned clear tasks that they can perform meaningfully." The advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama believes the most important thing for the future is to find "fast, pragmatic solutions" so that conflicts can be efficiently defused as they arise.

But Pierre Morel, EU Special Envoy for Central Asia and Crisis Situations in Georgia, believes that it will still take decades before Europe will establish vigorous, decisive institutions that will also function well in crises. Yet the French diplomat sets no store on new institutions.

Instead, he argues that existing organizations should be evolved further and given stronger mandates: "Nobody doubts the basis of the Helsinki Document, but we have to revise it to meet new threats. We need a new Helsinki – a 'Helsinki Plus'." According to Morel, there is no better platform for security in Europe than the OSCE. "We need to restructure the Security Council, but certainly not to introduce any new bodies," he says.

Igor Ivanov very largely agrees with Morel, but fears the resistance of regional administrations: "Here we're fighting an army of bureaucrats who have settled comfortably into the offices of the European capitals. None of them wants to give up that lifestyle." Nevertheless, a new European security architecture can succeed "if we coordinate with one another," the former Russian foreign minister is sure.

However, Ivanov knows that the basis for coexisting in partnership does not exist as yet, either in Russia or in Europe. He feels there is a lack of mutual trust: "Nobody in Russia believes there is a threat of war from Europe, and I also think nobody in Europe believes there is a threat of war from Russia. We're no longer enemies, but we're not really partners yet either."

Wolfgang Ischinger describes the problem similarly: "At the moment, the principle is: if something is good for the West, it must be bad for Russia, and vice versa. We have to put that behind us. We have to work out a win-win principle for our dealings with Russia, following the example of the EU state.

"The win-win idea must also apply for a pan-European security system," says the chairman of the Munich Conference on Security Policy. If Russia comes to expect "only good things from the western front," says Ischinger, it may be possible to set the European security architecture back on a more stable foundation, and avert repeating the kinds of institutional failures that have happened in the past in the Balkans, Kosovo, or Georgia.

Chairman of the Munich Conference on Security Policy; from 2006 to 2008 German Ambassador to London, and from 2001 to 2006 to USA; from 1998 to 2001 Deputy Foreign Minister of the German Foreign Office.

Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation from 2004 to 2007; from 1998 to 2004 Foreign Minister of Russia.

International Relations Expert and Advisor; Collaborator on diverse US-American Think Tanks; Author of "The Second World".

EU Special Envoy for Central Asia and crisis situations in Georgia; from 1993 to 2005 French Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Russia, and China.