A leading European security researcher warns that despite a softer tone from the US at the Munich Security Conference, fundamental differences between America and Europe remain unresolved. The transatlantic alliance now rests on shaky ground with few shared values left, raising questions about what still holds the partnership together.
Munich Conference Reveals Deep Transatlantic Divide
The annual Munich Security Conference brought together political and military leaders from across the Atlantic last weekend. While US Secretary of State Marco Rubio struck a more conciliatory tone than his predecessor’s speech a year ago, the substance beneath the surface tells a different story. European anxiety about the future of the Western alliance has not diminished.
Claudia Major serves as vice director at The German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank with offices in Washington, Berlin, and several European capitals. She has advised senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic for many years, including recently meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Berlin. Her assessment of the Munich conference offers little comfort for those hoping transatlantic ties would stabilize.
Substance Over Style
Rubio’s speech may have sounded friendlier than Vice President J.D. Vance’s address from a year earlier. However, Major argues the core message remained essentially unchanged. Vance had shocked European attendees in 2025 by ignoring Ukraine’s war against Russia and claiming Europe’s biggest threat came not from Moscow or Beijing but from migration and open borders.
The latest American message to Europe boils down to a simple proposition. If Europeans follow American leadership, friendship remains possible. Major contends this approach does not reflect genuine partnership. She points out that alliances traditionally rest on mutual respect rather than conditional support tied to compliance.
Identifying the Real Message
Major emphasizes that observers should focus on content rather than tone when evaluating American statements. The fundamental differences in goals and worldviews between the US and Europe persist. The transatlantic relationship continues facing significant pressure despite superficial improvements in rhetoric.
US national security strategy documents reflect the same priorities Vance outlined last year. Major sees consistency between those documents, Vance’s speech, and Rubio’s latest remarks. The softer delivery does not mask underlying policy continuity. Europeans recognize that American priorities have shifted away from traditional alliance commitments.
Europe’s Response and Readiness
Major identifies a critical lesson for European political leaders emerging from Munich. Europe must develop greater capacity for independent action. Having reliable partners provides advantages, but uncertainty about partner stability demands contingency planning.
The Action Gap
Political circles have long discussed the need for European strategic autonomy. The recurring question concerns timing and implementation. Many European countries have increased defense spending in recent years. Europe now finances most of Ukraine’s war effort against Russia without substantial American assistance.
Despite progress on specific issues, Major warns of a familiar pattern. Europeans excel at identifying problems and discussing solutions. Actually taking necessary steps forward proves more difficult. The risk exists that once again tough talk will not translate into concrete action.
Kicking the Can Down the Road
The recent crisis over Greenland illustrates European uncertainty about American intentions. President Donald Trump’s threats earlier this year to use military force to gain control of Greenland sent shockwaves through Europe. Major had warned in January that such action would destroy NATO.
Trump has not yet acted on those threats. Europeans hope the issue has been postponed rather than resolved. Major notes widespread fear in Europe that Trump could revive the Greenland conflict at any time. Particular concern focuses on the possibility he might reopen the matter around America’s 250th anniversary celebrations in July.
At the Munich conference, Prime Minister Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen met with Rubio. They described the talks as constructive and agreed to continue working through a high-level group established after meetings in Washington. These diplomatic efforts build on discussions held January 14 with Vance and Rubio, which Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen called frank but constructive despite fundamental disagreements.
Perception Gaps Across the Atlantic
Major’s position leading an organization with offices on both sides of the ocean gives her insight into differing interpretations of recent events. The Greenland crisis produced notably divergent reactions in Europe and America.
Red Lines and Trust
Europeans viewed Trump’s threats regarding Greenland as crossing a fundamental line. The episode raised basic questions about trust within the alliance. Major observes that American decision makers may not fully grasp how strongly Europeans reacted. The perception gap itself threatens to widen the transatlantic divide.
Frederiksen stated clearly in Munich that any US attempt to seize Greenland would mean game over for NATO. This warning underscores Danish determination to defend territorial integrity. Denmark has strengthened military presence in Greenland with support from NATO allies including Sweden, Norway, Germany, and France. These nations confirmed deployments beginning February 12.
Shared Values Under Question
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made waves with his opening speech at the Munich conference. Merz openly declared that Europeans and Americans, particularly those aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement, no longer share the same values. Major paid close attention to this unusually blunt assessment from a major European leader.
Alliances traditionally survive because they rest on both shared interests and shared values. Major questions whether even common interests remain sufficiently aligned. Europeans and Americans may both want to end Ukraine’s war, but they disagree fundamentally about acceptable terms. Should Ukraine be forced to capitulate or maintain its sovereignty?
What Holds the Alliance Together
Major systematically examines potential areas of common ground between Europe and America. Each examination reveals troubling gaps rather than solid foundations for partnership.
Diverging Interests
Consider the question of China. Major admits uncertainty about whether Europe and America share genuine common interests regarding Beijing. Defense industrial cooperation offers another potential area of alignment. Perhaps some mutual benefit exists there, though even that remains unclear.
The starkest divergence concerns international order and institutions. Europeans and Americans no longer agree on the value or role of multilateral organizations. This represents a fundamental shift from decades of transatlantic cooperation. Major sees enormous differences emerging around values that once formed the bedrock of Western unity.
From Alliance to Transaction
Europeans find themselves asking what still binds them to America. Major concludes that little common ground remains from the foundations that supported partnership for generations. If nations only help each other when narrow national interests face direct threats, the relationship transforms into something else entirely.
An alliance implies commitment beyond immediate self-interest. Partners support each other based on shared principles and long-term mutual benefit. Major argues that conditional cooperation tied to specific transactions does not constitute alliance. Instead, it represents a business relationship where each side calculates advantages on a case-by-case basis.
The implications extend beyond abstract debates about alliance theory. Europeans face practical questions about security planning and resource allocation. Should they continue relying primarily on American security guarantees? Can they develop credible alternatives without destroying relationships with Washington? These questions demand answers even as diplomatic niceties continue.
Looking Beyond Munich
The Munich Security Conference has served for decades as a crucial venue for transatlantic dialogue. This year’s gathering revealed how far apart Europe and America have drifted despite efforts to maintain appearances.
European Unity and Defense
The Greenland crisis paradoxically strengthened European cohesion. EU leaders including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered full solidarity with Denmark. The United Kingdom and Canada also backed Danish sovereignty claims. NATO leaders warned that attacking Denmark would trigger Article 5 collective defense obligations.
This unity reflects growing European recognition that they may need to ensure their own security. Discussions about European defense capacity independent from American involvement have intensified. Denmark’s experience facing pressure from its supposed closest ally has accelerated these conversations across the continent.
The Path Forward
Major emphasizes that Europeans must improve their capacity for independent action regardless of American intentions. Waiting for clarity from Washington no longer represents a viable strategy. The uncertainty itself demands that Europe develop options.
Some progress has occurred. Defense spending has risen across Europe. Cooperation on weapons production and procurement has expanded. European nations have demonstrated ability to sustain Ukraine’s defense largely without American assistance. These steps show potential for greater strategic autonomy.
However, Major worries that identifying problems without implementing solutions remains Europe’s characteristic weakness. Political leaders regularly announce ambitious plans for defense integration and industrial cooperation. Following through on those commitments proves more difficult. Bureaucratic obstacles, national rivalries, and competing priorities slow progress.
The question Europeans must answer concerns their seriousness about strategic independence. If the transatlantic alliance cannot be relied upon, Europe faces a choice. Either develop credible alternatives or accept vulnerability. Major sees this as the fundamental challenge emerging from Munich. Europeans can no longer postpone difficult decisions about their security future.
Sources and References
DR: Efter München: Der er ikke meget fælles med USA tilbage
