America recast, Europe unsteady — What did Munich reveal?

The 61st Munich Security Conference, a key global forum where world leaders often exchange sharp criticisms, has concluded. This year, U.S. representatives did not hold back in their critiques of Europe. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, unable to find assurances from Donald Trump, turned to Europe for support. However, the anticipated peace plan from Trump’s team was notably absent.

What exactly was discussed at the conference? Why is it considered unsuccessful? And what critical issues did the Munich meeting expose? QALAMPIR.UZ provides a detailed analysis of the security conference held in Munich, Germany, from February 14 to 16.

The Munich Security Conference brought together approximately 60 heads of state and government, 150 ministers, and leaders of international organizations. Russia, which has been excluded from the event since 2022, was once again not invited.

One of the most pressing issues expected to dominate discussions was the ongoing war in Ukraine. Just days before the conference, U.S. President Donald Trump held his first official conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where they reportedly discussed the Ukrainian crisis and potential paths toward resolution. However, in Munich, the United States took a confrontational stance toward Ukraine, with much of the discussion centered on the country’s geopolitical fate.

The U.S. Delegation’s Bold and Controversial Remarks

The American delegation was led by Vice President James David Vance, who set the tone on the opening day with sharp criticism. In his speech, Vance outlined Donald Trump’s vision for ending the war in Ukraine but also directed scathing remarks at the European Union’s leadership. He accused European elites of suppressing free speech, undermining democracy, and systematically sidelining right-wing populists from the political landscape.

Vance’s speech stunned European politicians. He argued that Europe’s greatest threat was not Russia or China but internal instability and a departure from core values shared with the United States.

"The threat that worries me most about Europe is not Russia, not China, not any other external issue. What worries me is the threat from within—the drift away from the most fundamental values that Europe shares with the United States," he stated.

According to The New York Times, European leaders had expected Vance to unveil a U.S. strategy to end the war in Ukraine, especially after Trump’s recent call with Putin on February 12. Instead, the vice president turned his focus toward condemning the European establishment, sparking intense reactions from politicians and the media.

The Washington Post described Vance’s remarks as closely aligned with Trump’s "Make America Great Again" philosophy. Meanwhile, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called his comments an “unacceptable interference” in European affairs.

Vance also addressed Europe’s migration challenges, urging politicians to abandon their reluctance to confront issues related to open borders and rising right-wing populism. He warned that the internal situation within the European Union was deteriorating.

He further criticized European governments over freedom of speech and censorship, citing police crackdowns on feminist and activist movements in Germany, as well as the arrests of anti-abortion protesters in the UK. He attributed these developments to Joe Biden’s influence on European politics and suggested that Trump’s return to power would bring significant changes.

"I am afraid that freedom of speech is receding in Europe. But there’s a new sheriff in Washington," Vance remarked, signaling a shift in U.S.-European relations under Trump’s leadership.

He also defended Elon Musk, who has been accused of meddling in European affairs. Vance urged European leaders to “tolerate” Musk’s criticisms of the political establishment, framing them as an extension of democratic freedoms.

"If American democracy can withstand a decade of Greta Thunberg’s protests, you can put up with a few months of Elon Musk," he quipped.

According to Axios, Vance’s remarks were a direct reference to the political climate in Germany, where right-wing populists from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party have faced increasing restrictions.

Vance’s Stance on the Ukraine Conflict

During his speech, U.S. Vice President James David Vance made only brief references to the war in Ukraine and U.S.-Russia relations. Following his remarks, Vance took to social media to deny speculation that Washington was considering deploying troops to Ukraine.

He also addressed a February 13 Wall Street Journal interview, in which he was quoted as suggesting that the U.S. possessed the economic and military leverage to pressure Russia. Vance dismissed the interpretation as misleading, calling the situation “absurd” and emphasizing that the Ukraine conflict was not a matter of U.S. national interest but rather a bilateral issue between Moscow and Kyiv.

Vance’s Meeting with Zelensky

On February 14, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with U.S. Vice President Vance on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. The meeting was attended by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump’s special representative for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, and the head of Zelensky’s office, Andriy Yermak.

Throughout the talks, Vance made no mention of new U.S. military aid or the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine. Instead, he repeatedly emphasized the need to bring the war to an end.

"The goal, as President Trump has said, is to end the conflict. We want to achieve a lasting, long-term peace in Eastern Europe, not a peace that will lead to war in a few years," Vance stated.

One of the most contentious moments of the meeting was the U.S. proposal for Ukraine to grant American companies rights to half of the country’s mineral resources. According to Reuters, Zelensky rejected the offer outright, refusing to sign any agreement he had not had the chance to fully review. His decision was unexpected, but he remained diplomatic, expressing gratitude to Trump for U.S. support.

Despite the tension, Ukrainian and U.S. officials agreed to continue discussions on a broader economic cooperation agreement between the two countries.

U.S. Remarks Spark Outrage in Munich

Vance’s speech triggered a strong backlash among European politicians, creating a tense atmosphere at the conference. Politico reported that his remarks left European leaders in confusion and frustration.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was among the first to condemn Vance’s statements, calling them unacceptable.

"He talks about the lack of democracy. And if I understand him correctly, he is comparing conditions in some parts of Europe to those in authoritarian regions. This is unacceptable," Pistorius said.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also voiced his discontent, drawing a historical parallel that underscored his frustration. Comparing the conference’s tone to past conflicts, he summed up his disappointment on social media:

"As a tourist, I like this place—nice people, great beer, wonderful Pinakothek. As a historian and politician, the only thing I can say today is: Munich. Never again."

Former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis also left the conference in a somber mood.

"While I agree that U.S. Vice President Vance’s statements are a necessary medicine for a lethargic Europe, I pray that the medicine does not kill the patient," he remarked, suggesting that Ukraine could no longer rely on American support.

A Peace Plan—But Not from the U.S.

At the Munich conference, U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, delivered a blunt assessment: Ukraine cannot achieve a decisive victory in the war.

"If you're thinking about a victory like in World War II, it probably won't happen," he stated.

Kellogg emphasized the need to halt the bloodshed before discussing a long-term peace plan. While the U.S. delegation did not present a concrete proposal, Kellogg outlined negotiation tactics to European allies, suggesting that diplomatic efforts should focus on ending hostilities rather than pursuing outright military victory.

Meanwhile, Finnish President Alexander Stubb introduced a separate framework for resolving the conflict. His plan consists of three stages:

• Preliminary negotiations, reinforce Ukraine’s position through increased military support and stricter sanctions on Russia.
• A ceasefire, monitored by international observers.
• Peace talks, addressing territorial disputes, and long-term security guarantees for Ukraine.

Reflecting on the conference, Stubb described it as a “diplomatic cacophony,” urging European nations to assert their strategic importance to Washington. He stressed that Europe must move beyond rhetoric and take concrete action.

Additionally, Czech President Petr Pavel proposed a post-war reconstruction initiative akin to the Marshall Plan, highlighting the need for economic recovery once peace is established.

“Russian Children and Women Will Not Die”

One of the most controversial statements at the conference came from the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaia Kallas. Addressing the war in Ukraine, she argued that civilians in Russia were not at risk in the same way as Ukrainians.

“The difference is that Russian civilians will not die. That is, Russian children and women will not die,” Kallas said.

She emphasized that soldiers were bearing the brunt of the conflict and called on Europe to redistribute its resources to support Ukraine's war effort.

The Munich Security Conference not only exposed deep diplomatic fractures but also underscored the worsening state of global security. The sharp exchanges between the United States and European leaders highlighted the lack of a unified strategy for Ukraine. As major powers struggle to agree on the future of European security, one question remains unanswered: can real peace be achieved when allies themselves are divided?

For Europe, the conference was widely seen as a setback—failing to provide clarity, unity, or a decisive path forward.