The Munich Security Conference in mid-February 2026 revealed sharp disagreements about the nature of global order, the balance of power, and the future of Western leadership. The Munich Security Conference is an annual event bringing together senior political and security figures from the USA and Europe, with heads of state and ministers from other important countries like China and Russia often also invited.
At the Conference, the US Secretary of State (Foreign Secretary equivalent) Marco Rubio argued that the West is in a period of managed decline caused by policy choices on climate change and immigration and called on Europe to work with the United States to “save” a shared civilisation. This view reflects a realist perspective in global politics, which emphasises the “high politics” of state survival, power and competition in an anarchic international system, and de-prioritises the “low politics” of environmental and socio-economic governance. Rubio explicitly framed international relations as a struggle between strong states and dismissed multilateral norms as ineffective, reinforcing the American view that the only real power is hard power. His comments also suggested a shift away from liberal internationalism, where cooperation through institutions and shared values is seen as the foundation of stability.
European leaders and EU politicians strongly challenged this narrative. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas rejected the idea that Europe is decadent or facing collapse, defending the EU’s political autonomy and resilience. This response reflects liberal ideas about sovereignty being pooled rather than lost through globalisation. Indeed, Kallas herself owes her position to the supranational mechanisms of the EU, where members of the European Commission are expected to act in the European, rather than national, interest. From this liberal perspective, institutions such as the EU strengthen states by allowing them to cooperate on shared problems like security, trade and climate change, rather than weakening them.
The issue of Ukraine exposed tensions in political and security global governance. President Zelenskyy criticised Europe’s exclusion from peace talks between Russia and Ukraine that are being managed by the USA. Despite Europe being the largest provider of military and financial support to Ukraine, especially since the beginning of the second Donald Trump administration, it has been sidelined in negotiations. This raises questions about legitimacy and representation in global decision-making, as well as the salience of the EU as a global actor in the military and diplomatic dimensions. It also demonstrates how hard power, rather than contribution, geographic proximity, or principle, often determines influence, a core realist insight. Zelenskyy warned that Russia could exploit divisions within Europe, underlining the importance of unity in maintaining sovereignty against external threats.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued that the post-Second World War rules-based international order no longer exists. He pointed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s coercive economic practices and the USA’s increasingly unilateral behaviour as evidence that multipolarity and great power politics have returned. This marks a significant development in global polarity since 2000. The period of US-dominated unipolarity is giving way (voluntarily?) to a more fragmented system in which multiple nodes of power pursue their own interests. For Europe, this creates pressure to act more independently in defence and foreign policy and to break the long-term dependence on America. While European states and Canada are reluctant to explicitly articulate this position and have publicly reinforced the idea that their ideal world order is still shaped by a US-European partnership, they are nevertheless quietly preparing for the worst-case scenario of American isolation or hostility. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for the EU’s mutual defence clause to be taken more seriously. This suggests a move towards deeper political and security integration within the EU, challenging traditional ideas of national sovereignty but strengthening collective capacity. It reflects a liberal belief in institutional solutions to shared threats, while also acknowledging the realist reality that power and capability matter.
These concerns were reinforced by discussions on nuclear deterrence. French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France and Germany are in dialogue over extending France’s nuclear umbrella to European partners; in other words, France would use their nuclear weapons to defend other countries, as well as France itself. This reflects growing doubts about the reliability of US security guarantees, challenges assumptions about NATO’s central role in European defence, and raises the prospect of an EU-based military force of some description. Nuclear deterrence raises difficult ethical and political questions, particularly for human rights and environmental governance, given the catastrophic humanitarian and ecological consequences of nuclear conflict. Critics, including Spain’s prime minister, warned that nuclear rearmament increases risk rather than security, highlighting tensions between realist security strategies and liberal commitments to risk reduction and international law.
Sovereignty was also central to discussions about Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen confirmed that US pressure over Greenland had not fundamentally changed, despite NATO mediation. Greenland’s strategic importance shows how economic globalisation, military power and environmental factors intersect. Control over Arctic resources and shipping routes links sovereignty to economic global governance, while climate change makes the region increasingly accessible. Denmark’s refusal to compromise on territorial integrity demonstrates the continued importance of the state in defending borders, even in a globalised world.