The US softens its tone, Europe finally arms itself, and Ukraine remains in focus - results of the Munich Conference

This year's Munich Security Conference took place against the backdrop of complex transatlantic discussions, statements about Europe's strategic autonomy, and Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine.

Many events took place during the Munich Conference. The US plans to provide Ukraine with $15 billion in weapons in 2026 under the PURL program, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine is ready for a ceasefire and is also open to elections if necessary, but, according to him, this requires Russia's willingness.

German Chancellor Merz, in his speech, emphasized the importance of creating a strong, unified, and conventionally capable army in Europe that could guarantee the continent's security without complete dependence on the United States. 

Were the events at the Munich Security Conference an attempt to restart relations between the US and Europe? Why did the topic of Greenland disappear? How real are the talks about a European army? And what did Ukraine ultimately gain? UNN discussed this with political scientist Ihor Reyterovych.

Is the US trying to restart relations with Europe?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech differs in both substance and form from last year's speech by US Vice President J.D. Vance. In form, it is clear that Rubio's speech was much softer. It had a noticeably complimentary tone towards Europeans - saying, we are a great civilization, we need to live together and cooperate 

He added that such a change in tone does not necessarily mean a fundamental change in US strategy.  

Does this indicate a change in the US position? Partially, yes. But it's more like a good cop, bad cop game. First, Vance comes as the "bad cop," and a year later - Rubio as the "good" one 

According to the expert, the strategy is to gradually consolidate the agreements reached during the year. 

During this time, Trump has already been able to agree with the Europeans on many issues. They have resolved a number of problems that concerned them. And now Rubio has come to present it more softly: we are together, but Europe has its own tasks that need to be fulfilled 

Thus, the current tone of US speeches demonstrates pragmatism and a desire to reduce tension in transatlantic relations.

Currently, it cannot be said that there are any insurmountable disputes between the US and Europe. Many fundamental issues that existed between Trump and European leaders have already been settled. Rubio was supposed to consolidate this and somewhat reassure the Europeans so that they would not worry that the Americans would suddenly leave. I think he succeeded to some extent 

Why did the topic of Greenland disappear?

Another intriguing topic of the conference was the issue of Greenland, which caused a flurry of discussion in the world media last month.

Ihor Reyterovych explained that changes in US priorities are a consequence of Trump's typical behavior, who actively changes the tone and methods of pressure depending on the reaction of partners.

Trump is typical Trump. He raises the stakes as much as possible, escalates, threatens. Then there are two scenarios. If he is not rebuffed - he presses on and eventually gets what he wants. If there is a consolidated position and resistance - he sharply backs down and starts negotiating in the middle 

He clarified that the situation with Greenland developed precisely according to this scenario. 

The story with Greenland turned out exactly like that. He tried to take it "by storm" - it didn't work. The Europeans, the British, the population of Greenland - the Inuit, and, importantly, the Americans themselves did not accept it. The idea generally did not appeal to them. As a result, Trump backed down, negotiations began, and they agreed on expanding the American presence. He decided that this was enough and moved on. This is a rather primitive story, but it fully corresponds to his typical behavior 

Is Europe ready for strategic autonomy?

One of the main topics of the conference was the discussion of European defense autonomy and the possibility of creating its own army. Ihor Reyterovych noted that real steps are still lagging behind the statements.

There are representatives of the European Union who oppose the creation of a separate European army. They say that this could hinder coordination. In my opinion, these are strange explanations that have no relation to reality. But the discussion has begun - and that is already important. It will develop 

He explained the limitations of the current European security system. 

Today, the only strong army in Europe is the Ukrainian one. The American troops stationed in Europe are also very strong, but they are strong largely due to nuclear weapons. If we imagine a war with conventional methods, then there are questions here. Ukraine is much stronger, not involving it in security measures in Europe is foolish 

The expert also emphasized the risks for European countries in the absence of their own training. 

Unfortunately, at the first stage, it could end badly for Europeans. Russians, however slowly, are learning from the mistakes they made and continue to make in Ukraine. We are better prepared, but there are simply fewer of us - that is the key problem 

At the same time, Reyterovych sees opportunities for Europeans in cooperation with Ukraine. 

Europeans understand this. And they can move towards investing in Ukraine as a guarantee of their own security. Aid to the Ukrainian army is a deterrent for Russia not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe itself 

What did Ukraine get?

During the conference, support for Ukraine was also discussed, although in the format of the Munich Conference it was not as extensive as at Ramstein.

I would distinguish between the "Ramstein" format and the Munich Conference. These are parallel but different stories. At the Munich Conference itself, Ukraine did not hear anything extraordinary 

He explained that stable support from partners remained key. 

We heard about continued support from Europe, about continued diplomatic efforts from the United States. Americans continue to sell weapons to Europeans, who transfer them to Ukraine. But there was no breakthrough 

The expert summarized the results for Ukraine. 

But that is also a result. It could have been worse. If the situation has not worsened and we remain in the format in which we have been operating for the last year after Trump's election, then this is already a good story for us. We cannot say that we won a lot, but we certainly did not lose. And in some areas, we were able to make some progress. Some agreements that remained behind closed doors, I think, also benefited Ukraine to some extent 

Balance between the US and Europe

In conclusion, the expert emphasized that Ukraine and Europe will have to constantly balance between American and European approaches. 

We are still doomed to seek a balance between Europeans and Americans. And Europeans are also doomed to seek it 

He explained how this balance affects Ukraine's diplomatic position. 

Zelenskyy can afford to conduct a tougher dialogue with Trump, showing that Europeans are taking on a significant part of the financial and military burden. But in any case, we need to maintain this balance 

And he concluded with an assessment of the conference results. 

There was no breakthrough in Munich. But there is also no deterioration of the situation. And in the current conditions, this is already very good 

The Munich Conference confirmed that transatlantic coordination between the US and Europe is being restored after certain periods of tension, but changes are happening gradually and strategically balanced. The US is trying to soften its tone, demonstrating readiness for cooperation, while Europe is actively discussing strengthening its own defense capabilities.

For Ukraine, the key is that partner support continues, financial and military resources are flowing, and the issue of the EU's strategic autonomy and investment in the Ukrainian army creates an additional security mechanism on the continent. This means that Ukraine remains in the focus of the global security architecture and can rely on stable support, although a complete breakthrough in diplomatic issues has not occurred.

At the same time, the conference showed that Europe is not yet ready to completely replace the American presence, but is taking noticeable steps to strengthen its own defense autonomy. The balance between the US and Europe remains a key factor, and Ukraine in this context receives not only support, but also a significant incentive for further modernization and strengthening of its own army.

The Munich Conference confirmed: there is no radical change in course, strategic stability and the readiness of partners to support Ukraine remain at a high level, which is a significant signal for Moscow.