Barometer Check: Transatlantic Security and the Munich Security Conference

On the final day of the 2026 Munich Security Conference (MSC), a light snow dusted the rooftops around Bayerischer Hof – the legendary hotel that hosts the international security conference – bringing a sense of calm and closure to a hectic week. While this annual event has grown in scale and scope since its inception in 1963, it is best known as the place to take a barometer check on the state of transatlantic relations. This year’s gauge might read as ‘neutral, with pressure slowly falling’. In other words, while the transatlantic relationship is facing little immediate change, minor shifts in the environment are likely. Given the wrong mix of conditions, a sudden fall in pressure could bring about inclement weather.

Anticipating a Change

The mood at the start of this year’s MSC was a mix of anticipation and anxiety. Even as important conversations took place on topics from Ukraine and Iran to the impact of AI, the gathered high-level officials from government, academia and the private sector eagerly awaited the speech of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Would he reinforce messages delivered by Vice President J D Vance at last year’s MSC, accusing Europeans of suppressing free speech, silencing populist voices and failing to control migration? Or would he adopt a more realist approach, such as that presented by Pentagon Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Elbridge Colby at the February 2026 NATO Defence Ministerial, where he called for a ‘NATO 3.0’ in which Europeans lead on conventional defence, while the US continues to provide some conventional support as well as extended nuclear deterrence?

In the end, Rubio delivered both. On the one hand, he mirrored Colby in calling for the US and Europe to work together to reform and rebuild international institutions to protect national and shared interests. At the same time, he questioned many of the cornerstones upon which the transatlantic relationship is built: the rules-based global order, liberal democracy and free trade. He dismissed action on climate change as driven by a ‘cult’ and depicted migration as an existential threat to Western civilisation. While Europeans will be ready to support much of the agenda laid out by Rubio – including reindustrialisation, supply chain sovereignty and innovation – the Trump administration’s approach to other issues, such as climate, migration and trade, is at odds with European values and interests.

Given this split screen, what should Europeans take away from the 2026 Munich Security Conference, and what are next steps?

First, let some measure of realism prevail. The message from Rubio, Colby, and US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker has been consistent. If Europe takes on greater responsibility for its own defence, the US will provide time and space for that to happen. Initial fears of the US withdrawing significant forces from Europe, ceding the influential role of NATO Supreme Allied Commander of Europe to a European general, or ending its nuclear commitment to NATO, have not materialised. In fact, a US Long Range Fires Battalion will deploy to Germany later this year, marking the return of US intermediate-range missiles to Europe for the first time since the Cold War, and giving Europe time to develop and field its own deep precision strike capability. At the same time, there is no time for complacency. Europeans must move quickly to procure key enabling capabilities for electronic warfare, air defence, reconnaissance and satellite navigation and restore competitiveness to European industry, often – but not always – in partnership with the US defence and technology industries.

Second, have no illusions. Following the Munich Security Conference, Rubio travelled to Slovakia and Hungary to voice support for the countries’ pro-Trump, far-right leaders, Robert Fico and Viktor Orban, with the latter facing an election in April 2026. At the same time, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jeanne Shaheen led a bipartisan delegation to Romania and Moldova to signal support for leadership there. While the culture war of the MAGA movement is not Europe’s, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reminded the audience at Munich, Europe risks being caught in the crosshairs. US support for nationalist and populist candidates in France, Germany and the UK could undermine economic and political stability in these countries. To reduce this risk, European leaders need to address the root causes of popular discontent and build democratic resilience in their societies.

Third, Europe must continue to support Ukraine, demand a just peace and accelerate Ukraine’s integration into Europe. Since May–June 2025, Europe has been the main supplier of military aid to Ukraine and, as such, deserves both a seat at the negotiating table and a vote on the terms of any peace settlement. As the US pressures Ukraine to accept a peace deal by June 2026 (ostensibly to capitalise on any settlement ahead of the US midterm elections in November 2026), Europe should echo President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s observation that territorial concessions alone will not bring peace. 'Real peace' will require a ceasefire and credible security guarantees, backed up by a multinational force on the ground with the US, thereby providing a security backstop through monitoring and verification. Rather than allowing Ukrainians to continue ‘holding the European front’, Europe should move to integrate Ukraine’s military and defence industrial capacity with its own. Denmark and the UK have shown the way with long-term industrial partnerships and direct technology integration with Ukraine.

No Going Back

If there was any consensus at the 2026 Munich Security Conference, it was that the old multinational order is over, and it would be a mistake to return to the transatlantic relationship as it was. As the US steps back, Europe must step forward: together with the US where possible, but on its own – or with other partners – when it is not. The recently concluded climate partnership between the UK and California and the EU–India Free Trade Agreement are two examples of what is possible with creativity and political will. Charting a path for a new transatlantic relationship and new multilateralism will not be without difficulties, but as European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen observed at Munich, ‘there is a lot in between’ the status quo and disruption.

© RUSI, 2026.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Terms and Conditions of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you'd like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we'll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. View full guidelines for contributors.