Offer to join Trump’s new era is met with growing sense of European steeliness
If JD Vance’s thuggish speech to last year’s Munich Security Conference, directed at the solar plexus of Europe, marked the moment when a transatlantic breakup started, this weekend’s conference, in a rainy and cold Bavaria, was where the debate about the terms of the divorce settlement got under way. Marco Rubio, the chosen Washington representative this year, is a diplomat, so he softened the Trumpian tone with references to German beer, the Beatles, Dante and the Mayflower. But his speech was a stern warning that if Europe wanted to continue on its path of civilisational decline, as this US administration sees it, America would not be interested and has different hemispheres on which to focus. “Yesterday is over,” he said, and then he spelled out what yesterday meant. Mass migration threatening civilisational erasure and the continuity of Christian culture, unfettered trade, massive welfare states, weak defences, climate cults, the outsourcing of sovereignty to international institutions, the rationalisation of a broken status quo by people “shackled with guilt and shame”. Unlike Vance, he did not laud rightwing European populist parties, but he nonetheless wrapped himself in their ideology. His next stop after Munich was Budapest, where Viktor Orbán faces a battle in April to remain in power. And yet there were some, such as the organiser of the conference, the distinguished German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger, who claimed to be reassured by the conditional offer to join this journey into a new era with Donald Trump. If Europeans were reassured by Rubio, it was, as Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, observed, “a classic example of the soft bigotry of low expectations”. One reference by the US secretary of state to his country being “a child of Europe” and the older romantics of transatlanticism melted. But that was not the dominant European mood at this sprawling conference. An iron has entered the European soul about Trump, egged on by the many Democrats attending, and there is a willingness if not to confront him then at least to end the dependence and learn the lessons of the standoff over Greenland.
Talk of a stronger independent European pillar of Nato was heard repeatedly, and even adopted by Keir Starmer in his speech pledging greater integration on defence with Europe. His Valentine’s Day speech to Europe was remarkable for two other reasons. He declared the Brexit era was over and, unlike Rubio, he praised societal diversity and a Britain where “people who look different to each other can live peacefully together”. So much for Rubio’s risk of civilisational erasure. But the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who is due to go to China in April, said the era of US hegemony was coming to an end, and more quickly than many thought if the US believed it could act alone. “We don’t believe in tariffs and protectionism but in free trade. And we stand by climate agreements and the World Health Organization because we are convinced that we can only solve global challenges together,” he said. Merz signalled Berlin was already preparing for a smaller American footprint in Europe, and that Germany may at times diverge from the US. “We Europeans are taking precautions. In doing so, we arrive at different conclusions than the administration in Washington,” he said.
The dispute over Ukraine and Trump’s leniency towards Vladimir Putin still appals much of Europe and is at the centre of what is driving Trump and leaders on the continent apart. It was an American, Hillary Clinton, who expressed the anger best: “The effort that Putin and Trump are making to profit off the misery and death of the Ukrainian people is a historic error and corrupt to the nth degree … He’s betrayed the west. He’s betrayed human values.” The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, now a leading contributor to European defence technology, said “war reveals forms of evil we did not expect” and asked why it was, he felt, Ukraine and not Russia being asked by Trump to make the concessions. He admitted he felt keenly the mistake of Europe’s absence at the negotiating table. Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, further made the point. He said it was natural for the US to take the lead in the negotiations when it was providing the bulk of the military assistance. “But we are now paying for this war. The US outlay for the war last year was close to zero. We are buying the weapons to be delivered to Ukraine. There is no prospect of a package in Congress. If we are paying, and it is affecting our security and not just Ukraine’s, we deserve a seat at the table.” Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, rebuked Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, for telling Europe to dream on if it thought it could defend itself without the US. At one level, the US and Europe vehemently agree that Europe should take greater responsibility for its own conventional defence. Elbridge Colby, the deputy secretary for war and the nearest thing the Trump administration has to a theoretician, said: “People get it, 2025 was the year to reframe and reorient, and now we have a lot of buy-in. Look at what Germany has been doing with a massive increase in spending.” But what the US and Europe have only started to debate is what this more independent Europe will be permitted to do by the US. For the moment an interregnum exists. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, in a speech that lost some impact owing to its late scheduling, was the one who spelled out the wider consequences of Europe becoming its own protector. With new responsibilities came new rights, some of which Trump may dislike. Not only did Europe deserve a place at the Ukraine negotiating table, since it was Europe’s existential challenge, it had a right to speak to Putin directly apart from the US, Macron said. Ideally, the US should be weaned off its belief that a just deal is acceptable in the short term. In any negotiations about what may replace the collapsed arms control agreements with Russia, Europe could not again be a bystander while the US unilaterally withdrew from agreements such as the INF treaty. He had learned of the US withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty in the newspapers, as did all allies, Macron complained.
Macron argued that to be credible at such a negotiation, Europe needed better deep strike capacities to match those of Russia. European defence firms should not be browbeaten into buying US military hardware. “We will be credible only if we are able to procure and produce what we need, without foreign strings attached.” Europe could strengthen its own rules on tech and AI. It would be “crazy” if free speech meant giving “the mind, the brain, the heart of my teenagers to the algorithm of big guys with whom I’m not totally sure I share their values”, he said. Above all, Macron, Merz and Starmer referenced the deeply sensitive discussions on which they are to embark as to how France and the UK could make their nuclear deterrents available to Europe, thus reducing the need for the US nuclear umbrella. It is a hugely expensive and politically fraught undertaking. Merz made a brief but deliberate reference to the initial talks he had held with Macron, and in an article for Foreign Affairs he said he hoped to agree the first concrete steps this year. Macron was also an enthusiast, pointing to the cooperation with Britain. If European sovereignty ever extends this far it will make the US uncomfortable. But it is a sign of the times that it is on the agenda. Yesterday is truly over.