Europe once positionedtransatlantic relations based on values and believed that the United States should naturally bear the responsibilities and expenses of leading the alliance. But this era has passed.
Compared with the scene of last year’s MSC (Munich Security Conference), this year it is obvious that Europeans are more anxious about their security situation and have a deeper sense of powerlessness. Existing anxieties have added many new factors. First, the framework of transatlantic relations has undergone tremendous changes. The traditional foundation of European security has been shaken and the security building has been tilted. Europe, which is accustomed to U.S. security protection, is looking forward to the new U.S. administration proposing plans to resolve European security on the occasion of this year’s Munich Security Conference, especially specific arrangements to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The author has noticed that some European experts have warned not to hold too much hope for a rapid resolution of the Russia-Ukraine issue unless Ukraine “submits” and makes compromises on territorial and sovereignty issues. In addition, it is difficult for Europe and the United States to have the weight to meet Russia’s demands. The tools for sanctions and sanctions against Russia have been exhausted, and further expansion of sanctions will cost the United States. Moreover, the ever-increasing sanctions on Russia have not produced the effect that the sanctionists expected. It can be said that the United States “Big Stick policy” towards Russia so far has had little effect, and it can only try the carrot policy next. This is in line with the new U.S. government’s foreign policy trading principle, but it means the arrival of the “big stick moment” for Europeans. It is foreseeable that although Europeans have repeatedly insisted that the settlement of the Russia-Ukraine issue cannot sacrifice the interests of Ukraine, Europe lacks the power to support its demands and ultimately has to obey the United States’ practices. Moreover, Europe will also pay for the United States’ plan to stop the war in the process. U.S. Vice President Vance led a delegation including U.S. Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other government officials to participate in the Munich Security Conference and the Paris Artificial Intelligence Action Summit previously held in Paris. At the Paris Artificial Intelligence Summit, Vance warned Europe not to use standardized means to embarrass American companies and affect the United States ‘absolute global leadership in the field of artificial intelligence. This is the first time that the new U.S. government has announced its “America First” policy in a specific field. It is also a “warm-up” of the Munich Security Conference, which has already made Europeans feel the aggressive momentum of the United States. This is in sharp contrast to the helpless expressions of European Commission President Von der Leyen, French and German leaders at the scene, revealing changes in transatlantic relations. Today’s Washington wants to safeguard U.S. interests through transactions. From the perspective of the United States, the huge trade deficit with Europe and the huge investment in European security must be rewarded. However, Europe restricts the expansion of American high-tech companies in Europe. Europe subsidizes agricultural products heavily, which affects U.S. agricultural interests. Europe also uses the carbon cross-border mechanism to force American companies to obey Europe’s low-carbon policies, etc. All of this makes the United States feel that it has suffered a big loss and been bullied. Adjustment of US-EU relations is necessary, which will have a profound impact on transatlantic relations.
Europe is the party that has been influenced and changed. Europe once positioned transatlantic relations based on values and believed that the United States should naturally bear the responsibilities and expenses of leading the alliance. However, this era has passed and everything must be measured on the price list. Europe must be prepared to pay a higher price for more military spending and trade disputes. So far, the EU is not willing to be outdone. At the EU summit a few days ago, EU and leaders warned the United States not to start a trade war, otherwise the EU will respond resolutely. However, after all, the EU has limited strength and lacks confidence. Germany’s possible new government leader Merz told German business leaders a few days ago that the United States is the best country for German companies to invest and develop. This year’s annual report of the the Munich Security Conference also admitted that transatlantic relations are no longer the core of the US government’s diplomatic strategy. This also means that the United States has no intention of continuing to make every effort to maintain its core leadership position in Europe, let alone invest as much as in the past for such a core position. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Europe to take charge of its own destiny eight years ago. The era of relying on others is over. Now, when Europeans once again face the problem of strategic autonomy, their deep dependence on the United States is turning into fear and helplessness. How to expand Europe’s autonomy space under the principle of “America First” is an arduous task facing Brussels and member states. Second, Europeans lack confidence in whether they can unite to solve external security issues. In an interview a few days ago, the current Chairman of the the Munich Security Conference, Heusgen unabashedly criticized Germany and France for not being united enough and working together, and the failure of the locomotive leading European affairs. At the same time, the “Weimar Triangle” composed of Germany, France and Poland was once an important European policy platform, but in recent years it has done little to advance the European agenda. On the other hand, Europeans are worried about increasingly serious internal security issues, which is also the main reason hindering Europe’s unity in responding to external security risks. Countries are caught in internal affairs and have no time to take care of themselves, making it difficult for Europe to coordinate its overall pace. Compared with the prosperous and prosperous period of the EU, Europe is currently in some difficulties at home and abroad, and the security crisis is a comprehensive manifestation of the superposition and evolution of various internal and external contradictions.
Europe now emphasizes the need to use its strength to maintain peace and voice the strong around the world, but it is difficult to overcome obstacles to internal unity, especially on security issues. Data shows that the United States has more than 2700 fighter jets in 11 types, while EU member states have more than 1700 fighter jets, but there are 19 types. The compatibility of military forces among EU countries is a serious problem. In terms of military and security policies, Europe is still a small country with few people. This is not a problem that can be solved simply by increasing military spending. If there is no real synergy and each goes its own way, it will be difficult for Europe to have the power to maintain its own security. German philosopher Slotderdijk pointed out the problem of European diversity. A Europe with too many personalities has no individuality, and too much voice means nothing to say. Externally, as the United States handles international affairs more vigorously under the “America First” principle, Europe, which lacks strong military, economic and political means, will mainly play a “soft role”, such as providing diplomatic mediation and humanitarian assistance to help Ukraine and Gaza’s post-war reconstruction. However, Europe’s “soft role” appears somewhat powerless in the face of the United States’ increasingly “hard handling” of international issues, which means that Europe will face the challenge of global influence. Third, Europe’s security anxiety continues to spread inward, and internal security problems are becoming increasingly serious, which is the basis for affecting Europe’s overall security.
The report of this year’s the Munich Security Conference uses “multipolarity” and “polarization” to describe the main characteristics and complex characteristics of the global security situation. In fact, within the EU and its member states, various relations are also characterized by multipolarity and polarization. Economic development is slow, refugee and immigration problems are getting worse, and accompanying criminal cases have risen sharply. Populism has fueled the flames and taken advantage of the momentum. European society has become increasingly divided, non-traditional political forces have risen, and emerging political forces and parties, such as Germany’s Choice Party, have gained support from voters dissatisfied with traditional politics, and have formed a shaping force that can influence the political ecology. In most European countries such as France, the Netherlands, Italy, and Austria, the decline of traditional large parties has become a common trend. Internal security issues are receiving increasing attention, causing anxiety. To solve these problems, we must deeply reform Europe’s traditional political and economic governance models. Whether Europe has the strength to face this in-depth reform is still a big unknown, although many intellectual and political elites in Europe have realized the need for reform. It is foreseeable that this the Munich Security Conference, in addition to continuing the tradition of discussing external security issues, will also focus on discussing its own internal issues, which may become a real start for Europe’s strategic autonomy.
Author | Jiang Feng, Research Professor at Shanghai International Studies University, Chairman of Council of Shanghai Academy of Global Governance and Area Studies
Source | “Shangguan News”, February 14, 2025.
Translated and reviewed by Chen Xinran with AI translator
