Abdelrahman
Security Correspondent
Reuters
Over the next three days, US Vice President JD Vance, Ukrainian President Zelensky, along with approximately 60 other global leaders and policymakers, will gather in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC).
Having attended and reported on this event for nearly twenty years, I find it hard to recall a time when global security concerns have been more pressing. As a senior and seasoned Western official remarked this week, “this is the most perilous and contested period I have encountered in my career.”
What’s driving this urgency?
In essence, the established global security framework—known as the International Rules-based Order—is at risk of disintegration; some might even argue it is already unraveling.
The Breakdown of Consensus
Following President Putin’s major assault on Ukraine three years ago, the reaction was one of widespread condemnation from much of the globe. NATO, the EU, and the West, in general, exhibited an unprecedented level of solidarity in supporting Ukraine’s defense, all while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia.
Despite some hesitance from Slovakia and Hungary, there was a general agreement that Putin’s invasion must not be allowed to succeed; failure to do so could critically undermine NATO and entice Russia to target another neighboring nation, such as Estonia. The consensus was that Ukraine should receive whatever aid necessary for as long as needed to secure a sustainable peace from a position of strength.
That consensus is no longer steadfast.
Former President Trump has undermined Ukraine’s negotiating chances by suggesting, via his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, that restoring Ukraine’s territory to its pre-2014 state is “not realistic.”
The US has also dashed Kyiv’s aspirations of joining NATO, which has been a significant goal for President Zelensky, and has ruled out dispatching US troops to safeguard its borders against potential future threats from Russia.
A further shock was delivered when it emerged that President Trump had a seemingly amicable 90-minute discussion with President Putin, abruptly breaking the West’s three-year communication freeze with the Russian leader initiated post-invasion.
EPA
In the coming 72 hours, attendees in Munich can expect to hear detailed discussions from Trump’s team regarding their plan for Ukraine. Some aspects are still being finalized after retired US Army General Keith Kellogg’s upcoming visit to Kyiv.
However, the unity of NATO is visibly strained, reflecting significant discrepancies in perspectives between Washington and Europe regarding Ukraine. The US appears eager for a swift conclusion to the conflict, even if it entails conceding to some of Moscow’s demands.
Conversely, European nations had previously believed that maintaining pressure on Russia would ultimately lead to a favorable peace agreement due to Russia’s escalating battlefield losses and economic difficulties.
This approach is now seemingly off the table.
Emerging Fractures within NATO
As NATO marks its 76th year, unsettling fissures are becoming apparent and are expected to be a topic of discourse at the Munich Security Conference.
Last month, former President Trump suggested the acquisition of Greenland, a self-governing entity within Denmark. Following Denmark’s Prime Minister Frederiksson’s assurance that “Greenland is not for sale,” Trump reportedly made a “horrendous” phone call, implying the potential use of force to take Greenland.
The notion of one NATO member state threatening to seize territory from another would have been unthinkable until recently. In the case of Greenland, there is no security justification as the US has more troops stationed there than Denmark, and Copenhagen is cooperative in enhancing defense arrangements for the island.
Although this idea may not come to fruition, and most of Scandinavia hopes it doesn’t, the potential damage is already evident. The implication from the leader of the free world is a distressing one: it’s acceptable to threaten your neighbors to acquire their territory.
“It is possible,” notes Lord Kim Darroch, the former UK national security advisor and British Ambassador to Washington, “that Trump’s threats against NATO ally Denmark may serve strategic negotiation purposes. Regardless, it’s damaging; it sends a clear signal of Trump’s contempt for NATO, which will resonate in Moscow and Beijing, suggesting they have a free hand regarding Ukraine and Taiwan.”
Washington’s European allies will be seeking assurances in Munich that such notions are misplaced, but indications suggest President Trump is already reshaping America’s global role, largely ignoring European concerns.
