In hindsight, the 2025 Munich Security Conference marked a pivotal moment. Once again the forum brought together decision-makers from around the world to discuss major global security issues, with widespread hope that it would set the stage for a sustainable peace process for Ukraine. Instead, the prospects for such a process have greatly declined, while the conference itself only further demonstrated the diminishing relevance of the ‘global West’. Originally established as a Military Security Conference (Internationale Wehrkunde-Begegnung) focused on European and transatlantic security, the MSC now stands at a crossroads: return to its European roots or expand politically and thematically? Both options come with a price tag.
The MSC as a Forum in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape
Reporting on 2025 MSC has supplied numerous more or less alarmist commentaries on the rift between the US and its European allies, a fracturing first evident in public statements from the US president and Defense Secretary Hegseth and later crystalizing in JD Vance’s speech in Munich. We do not want to add another voice to this choir but rather take a different perspective. Given that Europe might one day need to stand alone between increasingly imperialist major powers like China, Russia, and possibly even the US, what role might the MSC have as a forum in a world where the transatlantic alliance – or perhaps, even more broadly, the ‘global West’ – is breaking apart?
The published reports of recent MSC conferences show that the MSC-team is aware of the geopolitical developments that are unfolding. Taking a closer look at only the last five years of the Munich Security Report, the publications portray shifting political alignments and dealignments across the globe, as well as a significant reduction of the West’s problem-solving capacities. Report titles like Westlessness (2020), Between States of Matter. Competition and Cooperation (2021), Unlearning Helplessness (2022), Re-Vision (2023), or Lose-lose (2024) portray the vanishing relevance of the global West and the search for a new understanding and new strategies for coping with an increasingly assertive partnership between Russia and China and the former’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine. The 2025 Munich Security Report, Multipolarization, finally highlighted the dynamics of an increasingly multipolar world order and advocated for ‘depolarization’. Yet, while this report could not have been more timely, the recent transatlantic rift suggests that depolarization has become an even more formidable challenge.
While the report’s theme of ‘multipolarization’ informed the main program’s discussions in Munich, a notable shift this year was increased discussion of (Western) double standards. Sessions on reforming the UN Security Council and the need to (re-)establish and reinforce common rules emphasized the growing tensions in global governance. David Miliband (President of the International Rescue Committee and former Secretary of State of the UK) underscored the point, arguing that, rather than framing debates as democracy vs. autocracy, discussions should revolve around the questions of accountability vs. impunity. This broader perspective resonated with discussions of the global and more general decline of both international law and national domestic institutions.
‘We Do Not Want to Fight With Our Friends’
Initially, discussions in Munich revolved around how Europe and its transatlantic partners could counter polarization amid shifting alliances and contested global norms. However, this course was reversed when JD Vance took the main stage in the overcrowded conference hall, questioning whether Europe is a partner worth fighting for if it does not share the current US administration’s vision of democracy with reduced institutional oversight. Some at the conference saw Vance’s remarks not as a message to European allies, but aimed at his MAGA audience back home. Nevertheless, given the MSC’s traditional focus on transatlantic relations, the speech was almost performative, delivered in a forum promoting transatlantic unity. As Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, put it succinctly: “[…] we do not want to fight with our friends”.
One might speculate about the concrete targets of JD Vance’s speech in Munich, but remarks from the US president and close advisors both before and after Munich highlight that transatlantic friendship is not cherished by the Trump administration and that Europe needs to prepare for a future without the US as its reliable ally. If the public conflict between Trump, Vance, and the Ukrainian president in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025 signaled the end of the transatlantic partnership, what role could the MSC have in preparing for a potential future without it? Such a future compels Europe to not only take responsibility for its own security and defense but also to build partnerships beyond the US with states and regions committed to upholding at least a basic vision of the rules-based order on which Europe is founded.
Europe Beyond the Transatlantic Partnership?
For sure, the MSC can and should play a role in this future, either as a purely European forum where Europe discusses its most pressing security challenges, or as a truly global platform. In the latter case, the MSC would set the stage for a multipolar world, placing greater focus on issues crucial to the Global South, such as free trade, intellectual property rights, and peace resolutions. Under Christoph Heusgen’s leadership as Chairman of the conference the MSC has built upon earlier steps to open its stage to leaders beyond the global West. Heusgen’s vision for the MSC was to increase participation of leaders from the global South in particular and of women in general, thereby reflecting their increasing importance for global security challenges. This shift – which has become increasingly noticeable in recent years – was especially evident at the 2025 MSC, which featured significant attendance by panelists from all world regions, including Africa, the Middle East, the Americas, and the Asia-Pacific. This broader representation signals a growing awareness that global security challenges cannot be addressed solely through a transatlantic lens. Additionally, the 2025 MSC made significant progress toward gender parity, with nearly half of the panelists being women. This marks a step forward in making security discussions more representative of the world they aim to address, moving beyond the traditionally male-dominated nature of such forums. Heusgen’s push for a more inclusive, diverse MSC may now be paying off in ways not fully anticipated three years ago when he took over the leadership of the conference. In many events at the MSC, participants from the Global South made clear that they were interested in upholding the rules-based international order, albeit not in its current form. Their interest is in reforming that order to allow for equal participation in fair rules, particularly in the area of trade. Europe is well-advised to listen to these voices in order to form viable partnerships with other actors besides the US, whose current administration is not aligned with that goal. This has also been reflected in the current UN resolutions regarding the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The majority of the UN General Assembly condemned the Russian aggression against the votes of Russia, Belarus and the US, while the latter brought forward a resolution in the UN Security Council which called for peace in Ukraine without mentioning Russia as the aggressor.
However, for the MSC to become a truly global forum, this requires more than simply adding additional voices from the Global South. It means giving their perspectives and themes more space and recognition in the conference and creating networks and informal side events tailored to their needs.
It is plain to see that the MSC still focuses on conflicts such as Ukraine or Gaza that are of strategic interest to Europe and the global West more broadly while other conflicts such as those in Sudan or in Yemen remain on the sidelines. Similarly, while the MSC focuses on trade, innovation, and resilience, it often does so from a strategic military point of view, while issues of double standards, fair trading practices, or climate protection as a means to resilience receive significantly less attention.
The MSC at a Crossroads
This year’s MSC confirmed its role as a leading forum for security debates, but it also revealed deeper tensions – between transatlantic allies and within the rules-based order. Because the MSC needs to grow beyond its transatlantic roots, it has the potential to evolve into something more: a space where Europe defines its global role or where Europe invites the globe to partner with it to reform and secure the global rules-based order.
Both options come with a price tag. If the MSC returns to its roots as a military security conference in – and for – Europe, it will be an essential space for European leaders to discuss and steer their common security and defense policies and aid in the coordination of procurement and strategy. However, this would only add to the provincialization of Europe. An MSC primarily concerned with transatlantic or even more narrow European security concerns, perhaps misses out the opportunity to shape a broader European geopolitical vision.
If the MSC instead leans toward a more global and inclusive outlook, it could become the forum where Europe – not just in military terms, but as a key diplomatic and strategic actor – can take a proactive role in the changing world. The MSC could prepare the stage for Europe to forge new bonds and alignments with new partners to secure common interests in reliable rules and institutions to allow for socioeconomic development, sustainable climate policies, and non-military conflict resolution. However, taking this route also makes the MSC less unique, since it would compete with other formats such as the Raisina Dialogue or the GLOBSEC Forum. Thus, it might lose its current role as the pivotal space for discussing security.
With new leadership on the horizon, the MSC stands at a crossroads. Will Jens Stoltenberg move the MSC in a more global or a more European direction?
Latest posts by Nicole Deitelhoff (see all)
- Going Back or Going Global: The End of the West and the Future Role of the MSC - 5. März 2025
- Wenn es weh tut, wird es wichtig: Was heißt gleiches Recht für alle? - 26. November 2024
- Die Quadratur des Kreises: Friedensverhandlungen unter Feinden - 26. Oktober 2022
Mina Trpkovic
