📩 Controlled panic

DEAR READER,

Last week was a diplomatic rollercoaster. First, US officials floated the idea of ending the war in Ukraine, but without Ukraine. Then, with Ukraine. Then, abandoning Europe, appeasing Russia, and having a long chat with Vladimir Putin. And then on top of this President Donald Trump told reporters that Russian officials would be in Munich. It didn't happen, but now US-Russia talks are being planned in Saudi Arabia. Also, European leaders, concerned about the situation in Ukraine (and the US rhetoric), are meeting in Paris today.

Meanwhile, in Munich, Vice President JD Vance had little to say on Ukraine, let alone security. His speech instead focused on migration, abortion and democracy, and not-so-subtly nodded to the AfD in Germany and the far-right candidate Călin Georgescu in Romania. So what is the main takeaway? As Timothy Snyder has put it, "2025 is about what Europeans do, not what Americans say." And given that Russia's defence budget now surpasses that of the entire EU and the UK, this should be a wake up call for Europe… but honestly, we are way past wake up calls at this point. At least our illustrator is having a blast.

We will be breaking this all down in our deep dive with Wojciech Michnik, a contributing editor at New Eastern Europe.

In other news, we have extended the call for applications for New Eastern Europe Think Tank School. This programme is designed for young (up to 30 years old) aspiring researchers, academics, and students based in the EU who are eager to learn about the role of think tanks in building resilient democracies. The application deadline is now February 19, 23:59 CET.

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is widely regarded as the main forum for global leaders, policymakers and security experts to engage in discussions on pressing international challenges. As a platform for high-level diplomacy, it has historically fostered dialogue and trust-building, allowing for the exchange of ideas in a setting designed for open, strategic discourse. Over the years, the MSC has been the stage for landmark speeches that shaped global security debates. Vladimir Putin’s 2007 address marked a turning point in Russia’s relations with the West, as he openly criticized US foreign policy and rejected the unipolar world order. In 2019 Angela Merkel made a forceful defence of multilateralism, warning of the threats facing the liberal international order. More recently, President Joe Biden’s 2021 virtual address — declaring “America is back” — signaled Washington’s renewed commitment to transatlantic cooperation.

This year, however, the conference will be remembered less for visionary speeches and more for the stark transatlantic divisions on display. A particularly controversial address underscored growing tensions between the United States and its European allies, highlighting deep-seated disagreements over security priorities, democracy and the future of the alliance. As the world enters an increasingly unstable geopolitical landscape, the fallout from this year’s MSC may well shape transatlantic relations for years to come.

On the first day of the conference in Munich, US Vice President JD Vance sent shockwaves through European capitals, criticising the European Union, diverting sharply from expectations that his speech would focus on a unified strategy to support Ukraine. Instead of reinforcing transatlantic solidarity, Vance talked about Europe's alleged failures in upholding democracy and free speech. "The greatest danger to Europe," Vance said, "is not Russia, not China, but the danger from within." His remarks stand in contrast to NATO’s official threat assessments, outlined in the 2022 Strategic Concept and reaffirmed at summits in Vilnius (2023) and Washington (2024). NATO has consistently identified Russia as its most "immediate and direct threat," while warning that China's "stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge NATO’s interests, security, and values”. Yet, Vance, and perhaps the entire Trump administration, seem to take a different view.

While the Euro-Atlantic community faces its gravest security challenges, the US vice president chose to lecture European leaders on what he described as an entrenched elite manipulating judicial institutions, curbing free speech to maintain power, annulling elections in Romania based on dubious intelligence and silencing public concerns over mass migration. His rhetoric painted a picture of European democracies in crisis — one that many in the audience saw as exaggerated and provocative. Some analysts and journalists were quick to frame Vance’s speech in Munich as evidence of a widening rift in the transatlantic alliance. As one commentator put it, the address "laid bare the collapse of transatlantic unity”. It is a shame that such an empty speech made headlines, as there are much more challenging tasks ahead NATO and its member states, including ongoing war in Ukraine, ramping up defence spending in Europe and a need for a new opening in relations between NATO allies and the new Trump administration.

So, from a wake up call to cold shower?

Had Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference been an isolated incident, they might have been dismissed it as little more than a reminder that the office of the US vice president traditionally carries limited weight in shaping foreign policy. In that case, his speech could have been written off as the populist rhetoric of a newcomer eager to make headlines on his first European trip. Vance's words were not unusual. They were part of a larger trend of statements and actions by top officials in the Trump administration that are causing concern in European cities.

Just last week, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made headlines during his visit to Poland when he stated that “you can’t make an assumption that America’s presence will last forever” in Europe. While the idea that Washington will eventually reduce its military footprint on the continent is not new — and is, in fact, acknowledged by many European allies — the timing and context of Hegseth’s remarks were striking. They came at a moment of deepening tensions over European defence spending and just as Washington was reportedly pushing for "peace talks" with Russia: an initiative the Trump administration has been eager to pursue since returning to office. One does not need to be an experienced negotiator to see how such comments weaken the bargaining position of both European allies and Ukraine vis-à-vis Moscow. Some discussions, even in democracies, are best held behind closed doors.

If this was not enough, another diplomatic shockwave followed. The US State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had a phone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which was a follow-up to a call between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin earlier that week. The implications were clear: not only was this a departure from the Biden administration’s approach, it also sidelined Ukraine and other European states from discussions about their own security. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed that Kyiv was not invited to the talks reportedly to be held in Saudi Arabia and added that Ukraine would not engage with Russia without first consulting its strategic partners. Should these US-Russia talks evolve beyond preliminary diplomatic exchanges, the message to both Europe’s allies and adversaries would be ominous: at best, a return to 19th-century "Concert of Powers" politics or, at worst, a Yalta-style bargain at the expense of weaker European states.

Does all of this signal the end of the transatlantic alliance as we know it?

Not necessarily. But it does mark a decisive shift in Washington’s policy — one that goes beyond rhetorical posturing. The reactions from European capitals suggest that trust in the US commitment to NATO and European security has been seriously shaken, ushering in a period of uncertainty for Europe. Yet rather than descending into a blame game or political hysteria, European leaders must adopt what might be called a "controlled panic" approach. After all, they knew what to expect from Trump’s return to power. If his second term has shown Europe anything, it's that this is the last chance to get organised — not just by increasing military spending, but by strengthening political and strategic readiness to ensure Europe’s long-term security. Otherwise Europeans better brace themselves for impact, best illustrated by Thucidydes in History of the Peloponnesian War: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.

The main point to remember from this year's Munich Security Conference is straightforward but serious: throughout history, Europe’s gravest crises have largely been of its own making. While the United States remains Europe’s most important partner (and hopefully will continue to be) Europe can only safeguard its future through self-help.

— Wojciech Michnik, Contributing Editor for New Eastern Europe

Want instant access to premium articles from New Eastern Europe? It’s easy! Just invite a friend to join Brief Eastern Europe and you’ll unlock exclusive articles, insights, and more. Plus, you’ll be helping us keep more people informed. 🎁

You currently have 0 referrals, only 1 away from receiving Online access.

Copy & paste this link: https://briefeasterneurope.eu/subscribe?ref=PLACEHOLDER