Munich Security Conference: there's a new sheriff in town who will no longer protect Europe

For three days, the world's most important political and military leaders (accompanied by hundreds of delegates, diplomats, journalists, intelligence officers, and corporate executives) gathered again in Munich to discuss the world's most pressing issues. It could have been just the usual international conference on politics, where the press only sees men and women in suits politely repeating meaningless phrases to photographers, then agreeing to constructive cooperation based on mutual respect, standing up for democratic values and a better and brighter future, and similar statements follow each other like on the assembly line. However, this was not the case in Munich last week, and the conference was probably an important stage in the emergence of a new world order.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky opened his speech on Saturday morning by referring to Russia, saying that a country that had not even been invited was making its presence felt at the conference. This was absolutely palpable, but ultimately most of the talk was not about Vladimir Putin, who was not invited to Munich, but about Donald Trump, who did not attend.

Although discussions were held on broader topics of security, such as climate change, energy, health, artificial intelligence or disinformation, and panels were organized based on various regions (such as Afghanistan, Haiti, Venezuela or the Red Sea), the focus of the conference was clear this year: Who will speak alongside the Americans and Russians in the negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and will the US break up with its European allies? While there are undoubtedly contradictory messages coming and going from Washington to Europe, what is clear is that Europeans must immediately do something more to defend themselves if they are to keep the United States in the transatlantic alliance at all.

The conference was held less than a month and a half after Donald Trump's inauguration and a week before the German snap elections that predict an almost certain advance for the AfD. It took place just a day after an Afghan asylum seeker - now revealed to be a jihadist - drove into a crowd in downtown Munich, killing two people and injuring nearly 40. The conference was already under way when a Syrian man stabbed several people and killed a 14-year-old boy in Villach, Austria.

The programme published last minute was apparently adapted to the statements made by members of the Trump administration on Ukraine in the days leading up to the conference, which served as a warning shot to half of Europe. Just a few of them, as a reminder:

- Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth said the US is no longer "primarily" focused on European security,

- according to Donald Trump "the Ukrainians may or may not become Russians" in the future,

- according to Trump Putin wants peace,

- the Americans have asked the Ukrainians for their critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees, and a draft contract has already been presented to Zelensky, who has not accepted it.

New sheriff in town

The speech of US Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday afternoon was highly anticipated. Everyone expected that after the recent chaotic statements coming from the US, he would provide some guidance on the most important topics of the conference, the future of Ukraine and European defence.

What happened instead was far from the expectations. Vance only consecrated about one sentence to Ukraine, and instead he lectured the world leaders on democracy in a way that reminded one, with a little exaggeration, of a 21st century version of Khrushchev beating his shoe on the table in the UN General Assembly. There was undoubtedly a particular flavour to the way in which the VP of Donald Trump, who just a few years ago shouted electoral fraud and then stormed the Capitol, talked about healthy democracies. Vance said relatively early in his speech that his main concern about Europe was not Russia or China, but an internal threat: Europe's retreat from some of its core values, shared with the United States.

The Romanians, the Swedes, the British, the Scots and the Germans have all been scolded by him during the speech (the examples Vance cited are worth fact-checking). Referring to the abolished Romanian presidential elections, Vance said that if a democracy can be destroyed by a few hundred thousand dollars worth of outside votes, it must not have been very stable to begin with.

The US Vice President said that security could not be created by fearing dissenting voices and opinions, and that the United States could do nothing for those who feared their own voters. He condemned - more than once - the abolition of freedom of speech in Europe. With a clear reference to the AfD, he said that speaking one's mind from abroad could not be considered interference in elections even if one was very influential (Vance himself did not mention any specifics, but Elon Musk checking into an AfD rally was a pretty obvious example of the non-interference in elections mentioned my Vance). In a speech full of culture war elements, he told the astonished audience that if American democracy could survive ten years of Greta Thunberg calling them out, Europe could survive a few months of Elon Musk.

The usually bustling press centre, which was packed with hundreds of journalists, went completely silent during Vance's speech, as did the audience, who were reportedly listening to the Vice President in silence. If Vance's speech had not been held at the beginning of the conference, the three-day event could have been divided into a 'before Vance' and 'after Vance phase'. He clearly set the tone for the conference, the new reality kicked down the door to those present, and even on Sunday, the first question asked at almost every panel was what they thought of the VP’s speech.

It’s over, is it hurting?

The Munich Security Conference has been organized since 1963. In the past more than six decades, world leaders have made several memorable speeches there. It was in Munich in 2007 that Vladimir Putin said Russia would never accept a subordinate role in the new world order. We don't yet know what the tangible consequences of J.D. Vance's speech will be, but as intense as international relations have now become, this speech might indicate the beginning of the dismantling of the world order that Putin protested against in 2007. Vance's speech was full of spectacularly populist culture war elements, but there was even more emphasis on highlighting the value gap that exists between the majority of Europeans and the Trump administration. What became clear was that the pre-existing debate between Europe and the US is no longer about sharing the military burden or the nature of the security threat posed by Russia, but about a more elemental, social issue. Vance's speech had an unspoken yet clear message: NATO was created during the Cold War as an expression of the US commitment to defending common Western values. But if those values are no longer shared, then the moral purpose of NATO itself ceases to exist.

If we look at the mistakes Vance has mislaid upon participants of the conference (he presented multiculturalism, "globalism", migration, gay rights as faults of the US allies, while he has not criticised Russia at all), the US Vice President has come close to claiming that American democracy is at best neutral with regard to the values of Russia and European elites.

Vance's speech left a significant number of European leaders outraged, but no one seemed unwilling to get the message.

Zelensky on a European army

Even Zelensky in his speech essentially referred to the end of the status quo by saying "US Vice President J.D. Vance made it clear on Friday that the dynamics between Europe and the US are changing and Europe must adapt to his. There is a possibility that the United States will say no to Europe." The era when America supported Europe unconditionally is over, and now the continent must prove itself worthy of the US partnership.

The Ukrainian President said it was clear that the US needed Europe as a market, but whether it needed it as an ally, is less certain. For the answer to be yes, Europe must speak with one voice.

Even those who visit Mar-a-Lago frequently have to be part of this united voice. It is possible to be frustrated with Brussels, but there are two choices: if one does not accept Brussels, then one accepts Moscow, Zelensky told the audience listening to him in stunned silence.

Who is sitting at the table?

The fact that Trump first discussed possible territorial concessions in Ukraine and NATO issues with Putin, rather than with his own allies, suggests that the US President's relationship with Putin is more important than NATO, and that Ukraine does not necessarily have to be an equal participant in the peace talks, but an agreement can be negotiated over the heads of the Ukrainians. In fact, according to Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, it is possible to agree over the heads of the Europeans as well. Of course, it is also true that spending a few minutes on the phone is not the same as actually reaching an agreement over everyone's head. The idea of making a deal without involving the Ukrainians may not have popped out of Donald Trump's head first, in fact it is quite possible that Joe Biden, who is said to dislike Zelensky, agreed with it too, but there is one very important difference: Biden would never have said this out loud for the sake of his allies, whereas Trump took the shot for personal gains.

After the Trump administration's most recent statements, everything we thought about Ukraine has become even more confusing. The Ukrainians, and now the Europeans too, are practically having to fight to be part of any future negotiations about ending the Russo-Ukrainian war.

It has become clear that Europe must defend itself

For years, decades in fact, European leaders have consistently reiterated that Europe must play a greater role in its own security. This has been a recurring theme at every international conference and meeting since February 2022, and Munich was no different. It seems that something may change now, mainly because after evaluating the recent American statements, European leaders have finally realized the urgency of the issue. Of course, it is always a question of how far words are followed by actions, and the first answers to this may come after this week's negotiations held in EU circles and other European formations.

We have already come to the point where the EU has its own Commissioner for Defence (and Space) and member states have started to increase their defence spending, with more and more reaching the 2 % expected by NATO. (Although it is very likely that this will be increased to around 3% at the NATO summit in The Hague this summer. Donald Trump has already talked of a 5 % target, but a large number of member states are almost certainly unable to meet it.)

While the messages from the Trump administration are mixed, they all point in the direction that Europe cannot rely on the Americans anymore, at least not in the way it has for the past seventy years. This also means that Ukraine's future will depend very much on what the Europeans can and cannot do. If the Americans will not provide security guarantees for Ukraine, then the European countries will have to do so. Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio or National Security Adviser Mike Waltz do not seem to be representing this opinion, the President is not called either Rubio, nor Waltz. Based on what we have seen so far, Trump wants two things in Ukraine: 1) to stop the war (let’s not go into the question of ceasefire vs. peace), and 2) for everyone to admit that he stopped it.

But if the Europeans cannot show sufficient force, they cannot offer security guarantees. And any ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine only makes sense if strong security guarantees can be agreed that will restrain Putin and discourage the Russians from attacking again after a few years of recuperation. This requires a massive strengthening of European military capabilities, for which an urgent boost to the European defence industry is critical.

However, the human resources and equipment needed to guarantee defence are incredibly expensive, and this money has to come from somewhere, highlighted Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. (Polish defence spending already exceeds 4% of the GDP and is set to increase further, with the Polish army likely to become Europe's largest in a few years, according to all experts). The big question is what kind of resources the EU will gather for this purpose, whether it will be through some kind of a payment from member states, money left over from the COVID fund or the issuing of defence bonds. Sikorski says that Europe’s ability to do this depends on whether people are scared enough. It is clear that the closer a country is to Russia, the more it spends on defence. Sikorski - in the only public panel where a sitting US official could be asked questions, not just gave a speech - asked Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, to help persuade Hungary not to block joint efforts by obstructing European Peace Facility payments.

In her speech on Friday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe is "now in a new period of crisis that requires an approach similar to the COVID epidemic" and announced the activation of the emergency clause, similar to that of the COVID period. This would mean that defence spending would not count to the public deficit (for which the EU has notoriously strict rules), allowing countries to increase defence budgets without cutting their other spendings.

In addition to relaxing the budgetary rules, von der Leyen also announced the development of a "broader package of measures", which would be tailored to the 27 capitals and tied to their levels of defence spending.

Nothing about us without us

Ukrainian speakers at the conference all made it clear that Ukraine would never accept agreements made without its participation and behind its back, and European leaders emphasized this as well. The latter stressed unanimously that Europe's security cannot be discussed without Ukraine's security, and vice versa: Ukrainian security is also linked to the security of Europeans. Today, the Ukrainian army is bigger and better equipped than the German, French, Italian and British armies combined, and it has a combat experience that no other European ally can match. If this army is defeated, or weakened as part of a Russian-US agreement, the rest of Europe will become even more vulnerable, especially if the Americans really let go of protecting Europeans.

It has become clear that Trump will not just bring his European allies into the settlement process, it is up to the Europeans to force this. Whether this will be done, as Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski said, by making the US President realise that he will pay too high a price if he leaves the Europeans out, or by appointing a high-level special envoy for Ukraine, as Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested, remains to be seen.

Trump's actions seem to be forcing European countries to take immediate decisions on which they have been at odds for decades.

The country abandoned by its allies this year…

The Hungarian government was not represented by a speaker in Munich this year either. The panel discussions are only the visible part of the three-day gathering, the most important meetings and informal discussions take place in the background, and they have a much greater impact on the way the world is shaping up than what the participants say in front of the cameras. At last year's conference, more than 2,000 bilateral meetings took place away from prying eyes. If representatives of the Hungarian government stay away from these meetings, it will certainly not contribute to the understanding and acceptance of the Hungarian position, although all indications are that the Hungarian government, which prefers to lecture rather than engage in dialogue, is not seeking to reduce differences of opinion. (We tried to ask the government if anyone from Hungary participated in the forum, but we did not receive a reply.)

This year again, Hungary's place in the international community was well illustrated by the fact that it was mentioned only in one context: as a member of the cooperation "that is not sure to be on our side" (Zelensky spoke about this in his speech quoted above), and that is obstructing the Europeans' efforts in Ukraine by blocking the Peace Facility payments. Contrary to Viktor Orbán’s usual argument, no one in Munich said that the Russians always keep their promises, the general consensus was clearly that they do not. There was also a consensus that everything possible should be done to ensure that Europe is an active participant in the negotiations on Ukraine, and no one was envisioning the European Union’s disintegration, but rather the strengthening of the common foreign and security policy. Nor did the idea that "Europe will be left out, but Hungary will be there" at the negotiating table really occur to the participants.

Rumours suggest that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is clearly seen as the Trump-whisperer, and Orbán's name has not even been mentioned in jest. Meloni is a committed Atlanticist, Trump accepts her, she has a good relationship with Musk, and is not sent out for coffee breaks in Brussels. Although she has a distinctly right-wing domestic policy in Italy, Italian foreign policy is traditionally well within the European mainstream and Meloni's government did not fall after a few short months, in fact her party's popularity continued to grow during her premiership, which is far from self-evident in Italian politics.

Contrary to the opinion of the Hungarian government-funded press, in Munich there was a perception that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was stronger at the beginning of her second term than she was in her first. Together with Macron and most probably the next German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they could form a strong European voice. Add to this a Trump-whisperer Meloni and, depending on the outcome of the Polish presidential elections in mid-May, a possible new Polish president with whom Prime Minister Donald Tusk has a more balanced relationship, and European unity could even be strengthened.

...is the same who does not want to be part of the common endeavours

Since Trump's inauguration, things have started heating up, and the weekend of the Munich conference saw international relations spinning at the speed of light, with a lot to be decided in the coming weeks about the future of Europe. Some participants were flying from Munich to Saudi Arabia and others to Paris. If the European countries do not get a seat at the negotiating table about the Russo-Ukrainian war, a conflict that affects Europe's security to the core, that will be a painful proof that Europe as a geopolitical actor does not exist. And it is not an unrealistic scenario that these negotiations will indeed take place without Europe. The Munich weekend showed which European countries are willing to make sacrifices for their common future and want to ensure that Russia does not attack any of them in a few years' time. It is also striking to see who was not present at the meeting that was hastily convened after the Munich conference. That Prime Minister was absent who, while saying that 'strong men make peace, weak men make war', is impeding the efforts of others by blocking payments to the European Peace Facility, and who talks about a possible success independent of the EU when almost everyone else is talking about unity. And thirdly, it was striking to see who would like to sit at the negotiating table together, not separately, and who is talking about something completely different. It remains to be seen whether a process will be set in motion that will end with Orbán being sent on a permanent coffee break and European countries developing a parallel cooperation. It also remains to be seen how long Orbán will be allowed to continue to not just troll European affairs but to actually obstruct others, and how long they will be willing to pay the price. If international politics continues at its current pace, we may soon have some ideas.

While most European countries are proclaiming unity for their own security, Donald Trump is openly supporting the populist forces that are working to destroy this unity, from Viktor Orbán to the AfD in Germany. Many US presidents have rightly been said to have no interest in a strong and united Europe, and in the case of Donald Trump, this is clearer than ever. In his speech, the Ukrainian President said that geopolitics and history teaches us that if Europeans are not united, Moscow will tear them apart. The America.