Munich, a city typically recognized for its upscale boutiques and luxury automobiles, now prominently features posters advertising next-generation drones. These overt displays of military technology, emblazoned with the slogan “Europe’s security under construction,” adorn scaffolding-clad buildings along a well-known pedestrian boulevard. Such public demonstrations of defense augmentation were virtually unthinkable in Germany only a few years ago, but the rapidly evolving global landscape is compelling even traditionally pacifist nations to adapt.
Bavaria, this southern German region, has emerged as a leading hub for defense technology, with a strong emphasis on artificial intelligence, drone development, and aerospace innovation. Across Europe, a prevailing sentiment of increased vulnerability is palpable. Many citizens feel caught between a militarily assertive Russia and an economically aggressive China to their east, and an increasingly unpredictable, though once steadfast, ally in the United States to their west.
A recent Eurobarometer poll corroborates this widespread apprehension, revealing that over two-thirds of Europeans (68%) perceive their nation to be under threat. This autumn, Germany’s Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance issued a stark warning, stating for the first time since the Cold War that widespread war is no longer an unlikely scenario. While underscoring the country’s general safety, the office also advised citizens to maintain food supplies for three to ten days as a precautionary measure.
Germany currently stands as the foremost single donor of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, especially following the cessation of direct new aid from the United States. Public opinion surveys in Germany indicate a populace increasingly focused on enhancing domestic security measures as well. This situation prompts a critical question for Germany and other European nations: are existing alliances with the U.S., within frameworks like NATO and the EU, still sufficient, or is a strategic pivot towards more flexible, ad-hoc coalitions with like-minded countries such as Australia, South Korea, and Japan now necessary?
Precarious Transatlantic Relations
By 2029, Germany’s defense budget is projected to surpass the combined expenditures of the United Kingdom and France, as noted by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. He described the €150 billion earmarked for defense as a “staggering amount,” a figure acknowledged and appreciated by the United States.
Donald Trump is not the first U.S. president to advocate for increased European self-reliance in security matters. However, his approach has been notably more confrontational than that of his predecessors. The fragile state of transatlantic relations served as a central theme at the recent Munich Security Conference (MSC), an influential annual gathering that convenes global leaders, security experts, and defense industry representatives. While such conferences can be perceived as mere forums for discussion, they can be instrumental in shaping policy, particularly through informal private exchanges among decision-makers, away from public scrutiny.
The most anticipated address at this year’s conference was delivered by the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, representing the Trump administration. European leaders and diplomats were keenly attentive, recognizing the significance of a seemingly straightforward 30-minute speech. This heightened anticipation stemmed from the current state of U.S.-Europe relations, arguably the most strained in the eighty years since World War Two, and the realization that these tensions are unlikely to dissipate quickly.
Denmark’s Lingering Resentment
In the approximately twelve months since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, he has, at various times, engaged in behavior that has been perceived as insulting and undermining towards European leaders. His actions have included imposing substantial tariffs on their exports and, most alarmingly to NATO allies, challenging Danish sovereignty over Greenland. At one point, he did not rule out the possibility of acquiring the island by force.
Speaking at the MSC, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen expressed continued frustration, stating that Trump’s intentions regarding Greenland remained unchanged, despite ongoing trilateral discussions involving Greenland, the U.S., and Denmark. While Trump has for now renounced military action and economic sanctions against allies hindering U.S. acquisition of the Arctic island, the damage to transatlantic trust has been substantial.
European powers increasingly view Trump as a president driven by transactional interests, willing to leverage security and economic relationships with close allies to achieve his objectives. Prior to his re-election bid, he explicitly stated that the U.S. would not defend nations that did not meet their defense spending obligations. It is true that for decades, Europe has benefited from America’s security umbrella. Critics in the U.S. argue that European nations have maintained extensive welfare states while Washington bore the brunt of security expenditures.
Germany’s Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, remarked that “We got used to the strong support from the U.S.; we got used to our comfort zone in which we used to live. This time is over, definitely over. Washington was right.” However, incidents like the Greenland crisis and the temporary suspension of intelligence sharing with Ukrainian forces to pressure Kyiv into peace talks with Moscow have left deep-seated wariness within the transatlantic alliance.
A Speech of Historic Kinship, Yet Conditional Partnership
The palpable tension in Munich before Rubio’s address was understandable. Ultimately, his remarks conveyed a sense of shared history, stating, “We want Europe to be strong. The two great wars of the last century serve for us as a constant reminder that ultimately our destiny is, and will always be, intertwined with yours.”
The enthusiastic applause and standing ovation from many European politicians in the audience indicated a palpable sense of relief, particularly compared to the reception of U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the previous year’s MSC. However, for careful observers, Rubio’s speech echoed core tenets of the Trump administration’s agenda, including skepticism towards climate action, globalization, and multilateralism, alongside a strong emphasis on building a new era of Western Christian civilization. Rubio made clear the U.S. sought allies committed to a new direction, ideally with Europe, but only if shared values were present. This offer of partnership was presented as conditional and lacking in a spirit of compromise.
One European diplomat, speaking anonymously, likened the approach to that of a “psychologically abusive partner,” describing how the speech evoked past transatlantic warmth before transitioning to coercion: “If you want things to be good between us in the future, you have to do as I say!” Another diplomat noted the significance of Rubio’s post-speech itinerary, which included visits to Slovakia and Hungary – countries viewed by Brussels as problematic EU members with Eurosceptic leaders who oppose military aid to Ukraine and maintain stringent migration policies.
A Fragile New Relationship and Divided Europe
Rubio’s more moderate tone also exposed divisions among European leaders, who had recently shown a united front in defending Denmark during the Greenland crisis. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, emphasized the fragility of the current relationship with the U.S., stating, “Some lines have been crossed that cannot be uncrossed anymore. Europeans have suffered shock therapy.”
The question remains whether some European nations might interpret the warmth in Rubio’s speech as an excuse to delay promised increases in defense spending. Many European governments already face strained budgets, and their electorates tend to prioritize cost-of-living concerns over defense. Rachel Ellehuus, Director-General of defense think tank RUSI, observes a growing rift across the continent. Nordic and Baltic nations, along with Germany and the Netherlands, are noted as substantial defense spenders, while countries in Southern Europe, such as Spain, remain unapologetic in their refusal to increase defense budgets to meet U.S. demands.
France and the UK have publicly committed to augmenting defense spending, yet both are seeking a “political band-aid” to justify the necessary trade-offs to voters – likely involving higher taxes, reduced welfare programs, or increased borrowing. Ellehuus stresses the urgency for Europeans to focus on developing independent conventional defense capabilities, estimating a five-to-ten-year window to achieve this. Last week, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby unequivocally stated at a NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Brussels that Europe was no longer a U.S. priority; the Indo-Pacific now held that position.
Colby explained that under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. was reprioritizing homeland defense and protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere. While reaffirming commitment to NATO’s mutual defense clause, Colby indicated a reduction in U.S. capabilities in Europe, leading to a “more limited and focused” presence. He urged Europe to transition from a dependent status to that of a partner, advocating for a “Nato 3.0.” The traditional world order, with the West at its core, has indeed faded, and the MSC highlighted that Europe’s future trajectory with the U.S. remains highly uncertain.
Marco Rubio called for a new era of Western civilization, Elbridge Colby advocated for a revamped NATO, and the UK’s Prime Minister appealed for the remaking of the Western alliance. In contrast to Rubio’s emphasis on national sovereignty, Sir Keir Starmer proposed greater integration between the UK and Europe on defense matters, aiming to reduce re-armament costs, while stressing that this would not diminish the UK’s relationship with the United States.
Starmer’s Nuanced Approach and Emerging Coalitions
Sophia Gaston, a national security expert at King’s College London, noted that Starmer effectively articulated the nuanced strategic outlook of Britain in Munich. Gaston observed that while other European allies might express greater divergence from Washington, for Britain, navigating the transatlantic relationship remains a strategic imperative. Starmer appeared more prepared to confront the challenges and make difficult choices inherent in this process. The emphasis, according to Gaston, lies in a robust understanding of national interests and the instruments of power and influence, requiring a more competitive approach than Britain has traditionally adopted, which has often favored discreet, consensus-driven diplomacy.
In these rapidly shifting and unpredictable times, European leaders are increasingly turning to flexible, ad-hoc coalitions alongside established organizations like NATO and the EU. These groupings offer greater agility and often include non-European nations. An example is the “Coalition of the Willing,” spearheaded by the UK and France, formed to secure Ukrainian sovereignty in anticipation of a peace deal with Russia. Turkey, New Zealand, and Australia have participated in coalition meetings.
Canada is increasingly collaborating with Nordic and Baltic nations that share geopolitical concerns and common values. Their stated aim is to foster stability and deterrence across the Baltic Sea region, through the North Atlantic, Greenland, and the Canadian Arctic. A European policymaker, speaking anonymously, humorously remarked that Canada was becoming “more and more European by the day.” Japan and South Korea are also increasingly perceived as integral to this “like-minded family” of nations.
Beyond Defense: Strategic Autonomy and Interdependence
These ad-hoc coalitions extend beyond defense to encompass broader strategic objectives. France’s President Macron has long advocated for Europe to enhance its “strategic autonomy,” not only in traditional security but also in energy security, supply chains, and emerging technologies. At Munich, he urged Europe to “de-risk” its relationships with external powers.
The President of the European Commission acknowledged that if the EU failed to improve its competitiveness swiftly, a segment of its member states might need to proceed independently. Efforts by smaller groups of European powers to foster greater European strategic independence have not always been successful. The ongoing dispute between France and Germany over their joint development of the next-generation fighter jet, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), exemplifies these challenges.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding European independence, the Munich conference also served as a stark reminder of Europe’s continued reliance on U.S. security support, encompassing its nuclear umbrella, intelligence sharing, and command and control structures. Furthermore, it highlighted Europe’s significant lag behind the U.S. in high-tech innovation. However, the changes witnessed in Europe, including the formation of closer alliances beyond the continent, are likely to have lasting effects, extending beyond short-term measures designed to navigate specific political eras. The global stage is increasingly dominated by great power politics, necessitating adaptation even for slow-moving entities like Europe.
Top picture credit: AFP / Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson bring their pick of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis, every Saturday. Sign up for the newsletter here.