Europe Headlines: The Silence of Munich is More Jarring than Arguments

Munich did not erupt into fierce arguments, but it completed a silent turn.

At the recently concluded 62nd Munich Security Conference, three days of intensive discussions did not see dramatic conflicts or public breakups. However, it is precisely within this restraint and politeness that a deeper rift has become increasingly clear—America and Europe are diverging in their understanding of "responsibility," "order," and even "future security paths."

Since 1963, this forum has been regarded as an annual calibration of Western security consensus. But this year, it resembled a magnifying glass: the U.S. is reassessing its investments and returns in the global order, while Europe repeatedly emphasizes "strategic autonomy," yet struggles to shake off its dependence on U.S. security commitments. Inside the conference hall, there is a contest of policy language, while outside, voices against war and military expansion rise and fall.

What Munich presents is not just a policy divergence, but the beginning of a structural adjustment.

Transatlantic Relations Cool Further: From Divergence to "Deep Ditch"

At this conference, the contradictions between Europe and the U.S. are no longer limited to specific policy levels but touch on fundamental issues of order concepts and the distribution of security responsibilities.

German Chancellor Merz candidly stated that a "profound rift" has emerged between Europe and the U.S. French President Macron pointed out that transatlantic relations are in a state of high uncertainty, and Europe must clarify its own positioning and demands.

This rift further manifested in U.S. Secretary of State Rubio's speech. Although he emphasized the "inseparable fate" of the U.S. and Europe in his wording, he insisted on a "America First" stance on issues such as multilateralism, immigration policy, and global governance, and demanded that Europe align with Washington on values and strategic direction.

△ Commentary article from Germany's "Die Zeit" website on February 15

The commentary article from Germany's "Die Zeit" website on February 15 pointed out that Munich has long been a "self-affirmation place" for transatlantic friendship. However, with the change in U.S. policy orientation, "Europe is readjusting its internal map." The article believes that although Rubio's statement was relatively mild, the reality that the U.S. and Europe "no longer align" is hard to conceal.

△ Commentary article from Germany's ARD "Tagesschau" website on February 15

Germany's ARD "Tagesschau" website commented on the same day that this year's conference once again proved that the transatlantic climate is "further cooling." Although there were no public conflicts like last year, "the gap between the U.S. and Europe has become unprecedentedly clear in Munich."

Greek Broadcasting Corporation Correspondent in Germany Papas: The unpredictability of President Trump and his administration is a big problem, but I think there are deeper reasons behind it. What is happening now is not just temporary; compared to what we have known in the past, a deeper rift has emerged between Europe and the U.S. The once close relationship between the two Western camps no longer exists, and we are witnessing how a new U.S.-European relationship is forming.

From divergence to "deep ditch," transatlantic relations are entering a new phase that requires redefining boundaries and responsibilities.

Desiring Autonomy, Yet Hard to Shake Off Dependence: Europe's Strategic Dilemma

The statements from European leaders show both a desire for autonomy and an exposure of their helplessness regarding reality.

Professor Jiang Feng of Shanghai International Studies University: From the speeches of Rubio, Merz, and Macron, it is clear that the differences between the U.S. and Europe are very obvious. For the U.S., the entire post-war order is something it wants to break; the U.S. believes this order contradicts its interests and cannot resolve the contradictions existing in today's world. For Europe, the biggest destroyer of this order is the U.S. Europe particularly wants to be independent and autonomous, but in terms of security and strategy, it is very dependent on the U.S. So, I think this is a very tangled place for them; therefore, the U.S. still has a commanding influence over Europe. I believe that for a considerable period of time, Europe and the U.S. will be in a state of separation yet not apart, a kind of ambiguous relationship.

This judgment resonates with the interpretation of Merz's position by German media.

Editor Schmehler of the Geopolitical Section of the "Berliner Zeitung": Merz clearly stated that Germany and Europe must continue to rely on the U.S., especially on security policy issues. Because he believes Europe cannot quickly complete military buildup and stand independently in the world.

Merz's statement highlights the realistic considerations of Germany's position: while emphasizing the "European pillar," it is not prepared to break away from the U.S. security framework. Meanwhile, France emphasizes enhancing autonomous capabilities even more, and even discusses future European defense and nuclear deterrence arrangements. On whether to promote defense investment through EU common debt, Berlin and Paris do not share the same stance.

The internal divisions in Europe, intertwined with the tensions in transatlantic relations, make "strategic autonomy" both a direction and a dilemma.

It can be said that Europe is embarking on a "dual-track layout": on one hand, reserving space for the uncertainties that U.S. policies may bring, accelerating defense capability construction and industrial integration; on the other hand, still needing to rely on NATO framework and U.S. guarantees for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, Europe faces not a simple choice of "detachment or dependence," but a gradual path of enhancing autonomous capabilities within the alliance framework. This means that for a considerable period of time, U.S.-European relations are more likely to present a state of "separation yet not apart, ambiguous relationship"—an adjustment rather than a rupture.

Protests Outside the Conference: Questions on Militarization

If the key terms inside the conference hall are "deterrence," "defense capabilities," and "strategic autonomy," then outside the hall, there are echoes of reflection on the path of militarization.

On February 14, a demonstration initiated by German anti-war organizations took place in the center of Munich. Protesters held up slogans such as "Stop the arms race," "Negotiate instead of shooting," and "Want peace, not war," opposing military expansion and calling for conflict resolution through dialogue.

Spokesperson for the organizing committee Wilsmeier: I believe that NATO countries in Europe are trying to play the role of a world power in this new multipolar world, and the result is that countries are attempting to achieve this goal through military expansion. We believe this is the wrong approach and call for not increasing the defense budget as the German government currently demands. We also oppose the restoration of conscription, based on the United Nations Charter, which stipulates that countries abandon the use of force and are obliged to resolve conflicts between nations through dialogue.

For the demonstrators, the continuous increase in military spending and expansion of military investment may squeeze resources in areas such as social security and climate governance. For them, security should not merely equate to military expansion but should also encompass social security and sustainable development.

Protester Meinzolt: We firmly oppose militarization, which essentially calls for replacing shooting with negotiation. Our slogan is to shift funding from war to peace. Because the funds flowing into militarization are precisely depriving our women of the already scarce funds for social security, diverting attention from climate change, while bringing profits to large military-industrial groups, which we find extremely problematic.

Additionally, some protesters criticized the Munich Security Conference for deviating from its original purpose of promoting security dialogue, gradually becoming a platform for advancing military policy and geopolitical competition. They called on all parties involved to break free from the mindset of "seeking security through military strength" and to replace military deterrence with diplomatic mediation.

Protester Hall: Like in previous years, we once again protest the so-called Munich Security Conference, which has actually developed into a meeting that fuels war. Military expansion has never brought peace; it only leads to reciprocal military expansion, arms upgrades, arms races, and enormous risks of war.

The difference between the official security narrative and public opinion makes Munich not only a stage for high-level games but also a public space for internal discussions on security concepts within European society.

Who Defines Security? A Question Europe Must Answer

This conference did not provide a clear answer but pushed the question to a clearer level.

Europe is both worried about the uncertainty of U.S. policies and finds it difficult to shake off security dependence in the short term; it hopes to become a "geopolitical power" while facing internal financial divisions and strategic coordination challenges; it discusses deterrence escalation and defense integration inside the conference hall while hearing deep concerns about the arms race on the streets.

It can be seen that Europe is preparing for an uncertain future, but this preparation itself is still constrained by the structural realities.

Between security dependence and strategic autonomy, between alliance commitments and public opinion pressure, Europe must answer a core question: who ultimately defines its security? And through what path will it be achieved?

What Munich presents is not just a debate of an annual meeting but also Europe's realistic situation and deep anxieties under the complex international landscape and the atmosphere of a "new Cold War." Whether transatlantic relations can reshape balance amid the rift, and whether Europe can find a more stable positioning under internal and external pressures, will become important variables in international politics for the foreseeable future.

Reporter: Ruan Jiawen