Insights on European Security from the Munich Security Report

The latest Munich Security Report paints a picture of a deteriorating security environment, in which Europe faces both a more conditional transatlantic partnership and an emboldened Russia.

International order (dis)order

“Destructive politics.” “Comprehensive destruction.” “People who are destroying.”

All of these themes appear at the forefront of the latest Munich Security Report, reflecting the declining state of the post-Cold War order and the reemergence of spheres of influence as organizing principles of international politics.

For Europe, the centerpiece of this transformation is the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Equally important is the growing divergence in how Europe and the United States perceive and prioritize global challenges, as the report notes a visible crack in the values-rooted consensus that has historically underpinned transatlantic cooperation.

European security in transition

Europe has long anchored its security in the transatlantic pillar. That pillar remains in place, but its foundations are increasingly fragile, eroded by the logic of spheres of influence, a shift toward a deal-based order, and the personalization of politics. The report suggests that Europe is currently oscillating between denial and acceptance regarding the United States’ strategic reorientation.

On the one hand, Washington’s priority for the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere signals a gradual deprioritization of Europe. On the other hand, the material indicators of American engagement in Europe, although declining, remain substantial. For example, the expected Global Force Posture Review has not (yet) translated into major troop withdrawals, reductions in countries such as Romania have been limited, and the continued US role within NATO remains critical for deterrence.

Despite its continued presence, the United States has for years encouraged Europe to increase its defense spending and take greater responsibility for its own security; this is not unique to President Trump’s administration. The report notes that between 2021 and 2025, European NATO members increased defense budgets by about 41 percent. This is a tangible change, although gaps in capabilities persist. In parallel, discussions about European leadership within NATO command structures suggest a gradual recalibration of responsibilities.

While it is premature to label this as a structural transformation, it could signal a real move towards a so-called “European NATO.”

Europe's strategic dependencies and risks

Despite budget increases and structural recalibration, Europe remains heavily dependent on the United States in several critical capability areas, including air and missile defense, strategic airlift, ISR, and other high-level enablers. As such, the report highlights that financial commitments do not automatically translate into operational autonomy.

The threat environment further complicates this landscape. According to the report, Russian hybrid activities have intensified across Europe by 2025. In addition, assessments cited in the document suggest that Russia could launch a “local war” against a neighboring state within six months of a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, or a “regional war” in the Baltic Sea area within two years. While such predictions remain contested, they nevertheless reinforce the need to prepare rather than hope that such a situation will never occur.

The report also highlights Europe's political hesitation in certain areas. The inability to decisively use frozen Russian procurement assets to support Ukraine, as well as the continued lack of common objectives, are clear examples illustrating the gap between declared ambition and real-life implementation, which is often hampered by disagreements within the alliance, it reports. Defense24.

Harnessing agency through creative destruction

Drawing on Joseph Schumpeter's notion of “creative destruction,” the report argues that systemic change often emerges through disruption rather than gradual adaptation. For Europe, the current moment could represent such a turning point, however challenging it may be.

Even if a ceasefire were achieved in Ukraine, structural weaknesses would remain. This year’s Munich Security Report suggests that the transatlantic relationship is likely to remain essential but more conditional, Russian revisionism will persist, and capability gaps will not automatically disappear without sustained investment and political will.

For Europe, the report’s underlying message is clear: hope is not a strategy. Regardless of what happens at this year’s Munich Security Conference, Europe must translate its growing awareness of the threat into sustained capacity development, deeper defense integration, and greater political courage. The longer it remains in a state of waiting and denial, the narrower its strategic options may become.

The Geopost