My column on January 30 highlighted the importance of this year’s Munich conference, looking at the new reality of international security, 12 months after the Trump Administration. The main message of my text was clear enough: international law must say no to brute force!
Now, with the conference starting today and running through Sunday, I think it’s important to reflect on security from a European perspective. In Munich, Europe must be able to demonstrate that it is truly willing to resolve and overcome its geopolitical fragility with concrete actions.
This first year of Donald Trump’s Presidency has confirmed what the illegal, unjustified and large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already revealed: Europe is economically powerful, culturally and normatively influential, but strategically weak. In terms of security, it has fundamentally depended on the US and its worldview. With Trump’s coming to power, Europe’s vulnerability and dependence, in terms of Defense, on Washington, became more evident.
In this context, Marco Rubio’s presence in Munich, at the head of a huge and influential American delegation, takes on particular significance. At the 2025 conference, American Vice President JD Vance made history when he said, among other statements that shocked us, that the American commitment to European security was no longer unconditional. With that said, Washington’s position need not be so disturbing now. Rubio represents a less stupid America, which does not antagonize Europe in this way. It only considers it as a fragmented, disoriented, with little weight, practically insignificant geopolitical actor.
His speech will not go far from the following points: the responsibility for Europe’s security is, above all, a European responsibility; European governments must invest more in Defense, as they committed to at the NATO Summit in June 2025; Americans want there to be more strategic clarity on the European side, which in the US understanding would mean unhesitating alignment with the policies defined by Washington and effective engagement in Trump’s initiative in the ineffable Peace Council. Rubio will not forget to mention that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to exist, as long as its leadership is, in essence, dictated by US interests. It will also explain the alleged Russian-inspired peace plan that the American president wants to impose on Ukraine, including the unrealistic project of holding presidential elections in a country suffering a war of aggression day and night, and to the sound of Russian drums and missiles.
In fact, I don’t think Rubio will bring anything new from the West. The interventions of European leaders will have to be listened to carefully.
There, I see more and more clearly, significant disagreements, in particular between France and Germany – divergences that are reflected in the contrasting views between Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.
Macron has insisted, for years, on the need for a strategically autonomous Europe, capable of organizing its security taking into account likely threats. This position was once again reflected in the interview he gave this week to the newspaper The World and other major European newspapers. It does not diminish NATO, but insists on a balance between the strategic interests of both sides of the Atlantic. For Macron, continued dependence on Washington is a disguised but real form of subordination. Contrary to what others think, I believe that Macron’s stance is not intended to mark ground to replace António Costa as president of the European Council in June 2027. In this area, Macron does not seem to have much of a chance.
Von der Leyen follows a more institutional approach deeply shaped by German strategic options. Its leadership, closer to Friedrich Merz, has been effective in obtaining commitments in the field of Defense industries and in supporting Ukraine. But the president of the European Commission remains convinced of the need for our complementarity with the United States. For Von der Leyen, European autonomy appears more as a reinforcement of NATO’s European pillar than as a parallel political project, with a hint of independence. It is a decision inspired by the German tradition of recent decades.
Macron thinks of Charles de Gaulle and reflects a Europe that no longer believes in American support. Bet on unity between the main European powers. Von der Leyen fears fractures that could arise in crisis situations. He considers it essential that there is an external anchor point for European rivalries. In reality, this could mean that it recognizes the fragility of the European project.
I fear that the Munich Conference will show these discrepancies and convey an image of weakness to the delegation led by Rubio. And the conviction that whoever is truly in charge of European security would ultimately be in the White House. This would be tragic for our community project. In the face of Rubio, and through him, Donald Trump, Europe cannot limit itself to promising more spending. It must demonstrate unity, decision-making capacity and moral strength in a new old world, now dominated by powers that have once again stopped giving value to political ethics and international law.
Cadvisor on International Security.
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General
Leave a Reply