U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and up to 60 other world leaders and key decision-makers are set to gather in Munich over the next three days for the annual Munich Security Conference (MSC).
Having attended and covered this event for the BBC for nearly two decades, I cannot recall a time when global security faced such high stakes.
A senior, highly experienced Western official remarked this week, “this is the most dangerous and contested time I have ever known in my career.”
The End of Consensus
When President Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, it was widely condemned by much—though not all—of the world.
NATO, the EU, and the broader West displayed an extraordinary level of unity in supporting Ukraine’s defense while avoiding direct conflict with Russia.
Aside from some dissent from Slovakia and Hungary, there was general agreement that Putin’s invasion must not succeed. The reasoning was clear: if Russia were not stopped, NATO itself would be critically weakened, and Moscow could eventually be emboldened to invade another neighboring country, such as Estonia.
The prevailing stance was that Ukraine should be provided with everything necessary, for as long as necessary, to achieve peace from a position of strength. That is no longer the case.
President Trump has significantly weakened Ukraine’s negotiating stance by stating—through his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—that restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity to pre-2014 borders is simply “not realistic.”
The U.S. has also crushed Kyiv’s hopes of joining NATO, a key goal of President Zelensky, while ruling out sending American troops to defend Ukraine’s borders against future Russian aggression.
Adding to the shock, President Trump has held a seemingly cordial 90-minute phone call with President Putin, abruptly ending the West’s three-year diplomatic freeze on direct contact with the Russian leader, which had been in place since the invasion.
Munich Security Conference Gathering LeadersUkraine’s NATO Ambitions Derailed
Over the next 72 hours, President Trump’s team will outline their Ukraine strategy at the conference. Some details remain undecided and will be finalized after his envoy, retired U.S. Army General Keith Kellogg, visits Kyiv next week.
For now, NATO’s unity is visibly fractured. Washington and Europe appear to be on different pages—one side prioritizing a swift resolution to the war, even if that means making significant concessions to Moscow, while the other, at least until this week, believed that sustained pressure on Russia would force it to accept peace terms more favorable to Ukraine.
With Russia suffering around a thousand battlefield casualties daily and facing long-term economic instability, some European leaders had hoped that persistence would lead to a lasting peace. That strategy is now off the table.
Growing Cracks in NATO
Beyond Ukraine, other concerns about NATO’s future will also be discussed at the Munich Security Conference.
Last month, President Trump declared his interest in “buying” Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. After Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the idea, stating “Greenland is not for sale,” reports surfaced of a tense and “horrendous” phone call between the two leaders. Trump has not ruled out using force to take control of the island.
The notion of one NATO country threatening to seize territory from another NATO ally was once unthinkable.
Greenland holds no strategic security threat, as the U.S. already has more troops stationed there than Denmark, and Copenhagen has expressed willingness to strengthen mutual defense agreements for the island.
Even if the proposal never materializes—and most of Scandinavia hopes it won’t—the damage is already done. The leader of the free world has sent a message that threatening neighbors with force over territorial disputes is acceptable.
Lord Kim Darroch, former UK national security adviser and British ambassador to Washington, weighed in:
“It may be that Trump’s threat of economic measures against NATO ally Denmark, and his refusal to rule out military action against them, are just negotiating tactics.
But even if nothing comes from it, it’s done great damage. It’s another signal of Trump’s disdain for NATO. And it will be interpreted in Moscow and Beijing as a message that they have a free hand in Ukraine and Taiwan respectively.”
Washington’s European allies will be seeking reassurance at the Munich conference that this is not the case. However, with President Trump already reshaping America’s role on the global stage, he appears unlikely to be swayed by concerns from European leaders.