World leaders, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, are set to convene in Munich for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC) spanning three days. With approximately 60 other influential figures in attendance, this year’s event holds significant implications for global security.
For nearly two decades, I have attended and reported on this conference, yet I cannot recall a time when the stakes have been so high. A seasoned Western official remarked, “this is the most dangerous and contested time I have ever known in my career.”
The disintegration of consensus
The catalyst for this turmoil can be traced back to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, which drew widespread condemnation from much of the international community. In response, NATO, the European Union, and Western nations united in support of Ukraine, striving to aid its defense while avoiding direct conflict with Russia. Despite some reservations from Slovakia and Hungary, there was a prevailing belief that the invasion must be thwarted to prevent NATO’s perceived weakness and future aggressions from Russia, potentially targeting other countries like Estonia. The consensus was clear: Ukraine should receive whatever assistance necessary to secure a lasting peace.
However, the landscape has shifted dramatically. President Trump has significantly undermined Ukraine’s negotiating position by suggesting through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is “not realistic.” Moreover, the U.S. has dashed Kyiv’s aspirations of NATO membership—an essential goal for President Zelensky—and has ruled out the deployment of American troops to safeguard Ukraine’s borders against further Russian incursions. A shocking development occurred when news broke of a cordial 90-minute phone call between President Trump and President Putin, effectively ending a three-year diplomatic freeze following the invasion.
Growing rifts within NATO
As the Munich Security Conference unfolds, discussions will likely address the emerging rifts within NATO, which has stood for 76 years. Last month, President Trump proposed the purchase of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. Denmark’s Prime Minister Frederiksson quickly assured her citizens that “Greenland is not for sale.” Following this, Trump reportedly made a “horrendous” phone call to the Prime Minister, hinting at the potential use of force to acquire the territory. The notion of one NATO member threatening to seize territory from another was previously unthinkable, especially given that U.S. forces outnumber Danish troops on Greenland.
Even if Trump’s proposal comes to nothing, the implications are concerning. It signals a permissive attitude towards territorial aggression, which could embolden adversaries. Lord Kim Darroch, the former UK national security adviser and ambassador to Washington, commented, “It may be that Trump’s threat of economic measures against NATO ally Denmark, and his refusal to rule out military action against them, are just negotiating tactics. But even if nothing comes from it, it’s done great damage.” He added that this behavior sends a message to Moscow and Beijing, suggesting they might act with impunity in Ukraine and Taiwan.
As the conference progresses, European allies will be seeking reassurance from the U.S. regarding its commitment to NATO. However, indications suggest that President Trump is already redefining America’s role on the global stage, potentially ignoring European concerns.