Die Munich Security Conference this year drew as much attention as the one 18 years ago. Back then, Vladimir Putin’s speech caused a stir and this time, it was US Vice President J.D. Vance. Despite the nearly two decades in between, a common theme connects these two speeches: both questioned the transatlantic order built on the legacy of the Cold War. And in both cases, the Western establishment failed to provide a substantial response.
In 2007, Putin’s warning about NATO expansion and the west’s increasing influence was largely seen as the whining of a weakening power. Some voices cautioned for prudence, but in Washington and Brussels, there was a sense of self-satisfaction – it was believed that Russia would eventually conform. The consequences of this miscalculation are now apparent for all to see.
Today, Vance’s speech signaled a deeper ideological rift within the West itself, one that European leadership seems unprepared for. In response, French President Emmanuel Macron called an emergency summit to establish a common position. But does the EU truly understand the scope of the challenge? Initial reactions suggest not. There is still a – if misguided – hope that one can simply weather this “storm.”
Retaliation, ideology and the changing world order
One can explain Vance’s statements in Munich in various ways. The most obvious is retaliation. Western politicians have been openly derogatory about Trump and his associates for years, believing that this would have no consequences. However, with Donald Trump’s presidency, they now have to accept the bitter realization that their words are not forgotten.
But there is also a deep-seated ideological divergence. In many ways, Vance’s criticism of Europe mirrors the same accusations that the settlers of the New World made against the Old World centuries ago: tyranny, hypocrisy and parasitism. He and others like Elon Musk do not shy away from meddling in European affairs – a practice that liberal ideologues long justified in the name of democracy promotion. Meanwhile, the debate is extending, no longer confined to the United States, but encompassing the entire transatlantic alliance, on what democracy really means. This ideological battle will shape the West’s course in the coming decades.
As a third and crucial factor for Vance’s speech, the far-reaching changes in global power dynamics can be mentioned. The world is in flux. It is still too early to define the new world order, but one thing is clear: the old methods no longer work. Demographic developments, economic changes, technological competition and military realignments are reshaping the global balance of power.
At the heart of this change stands a central question for the West: Should the Cold War, as defined in the 20th century, be finally laid to rest or the struggle continued under new conditions? The West’s answer so far has been to cling to the confrontation – primarily because the Western bloc has failed to integrate former enemies in a way that secures its own future. The United States, on the other hand, seem to be ready to look to the future. This change is not solely Trump’s doing; every American president since George W. Bush Jr. has, in one way or another, prioritized other regions over Europe. Trump has simply made this more explicit.
West Europe’s dilemma: clinging to the past or looking to the future
How will West Europe react? At the moment, it seems to want to cling to the concept of the Cold War. This is not just about security, but also about preserving its own relevance. The EU is a product of the liberal world order and needs a defined adversary to justify its cohesion. A familiar enemy – Russia – serves this purpose much better than an unknown like China.
From this perspective, it is likely that some will try to escalate tensions to the point where the United States has no choice but to intervene. Whether the bloc is capable of provoking such a crisis is a different question.
For the United States, the situation is more complex. On the one hand, a departure from the old framework of the Cold War would enable Washington to focus on what it considers the real challenges of the future – and these are China, the Pacific, North America, the Arctic and, to a lesser extent, the Near East. West Europe has little to offer in these areas. On the other hand, a complete abandonment of the Old Continent is not to be expected. Trump is not an isolationist; he simply envisions a different model of empire – one that the United States can benefit from more and take on fewer burdens.
Vance’s call for West Europe to “put its democracy in order” should be understood in this context. It is not about the spread of democracy in the traditional sense, but about the optimization of state governance in a province that the United States increasingly views as dysfunctional. Indeed, Vance’s attitude towards European sovereignty is likely even more dismissive than that of his liberal predecessors, who at least paid lip service to transatlantic unity.
The final battle of the Cold War?
Vance’s Munich speech was not just a rhetorical salvo in the struggle between the United States and Europe. It marked a milestone in the development of transatlantic thought. For decades, the transatlantic alliance has assumed that the Cold War was never truly over. The fundamental question is now, whether it is worth continuing it and starting a new one under different conditions.
The current EU strategy – maintaining the confrontation with Russia as a means of preserving its own cohesion – seems unsustainable in the long run. If the United States withdraws and prioritizes its own interests in other areas, Brussels will need to reevaluate its position. Will it continue to rely on a concept from the Cold War that no longer serves the modern world, or will it finally recognize this change and adapt to it?
At the moment, the transatlantic rift is growing. The decisions made in the coming months will determine whether this rift leads to a permanent break – or marks the beginning of a new geopolitical order in which West Europe finally learns to stand on its own two feet.