How Trump's world order is affecting Europe ahead of key defense conference

This year's conference, which begins later this week, once again looks set to be decisive. It comes at a time when European security looks increasingly uncertain.

2321 views 0 comment(s)

Photo: EPA

Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

11.02.2026. 09:40h

It's been a year since US Vice President J.D. Vance delivers surprise speech at the Munich Conference.

He rebuked Europe for its policies on migration and freedom of speech and said the biggest threat the continent faces comes from within.

The audience was visibly confused.

In the meantime, The Trump White House has turned the entire world upside down.

Punitive tariffs were imposed on allies and enemies alike, US soldiers brazenly invaded Venezuela and captured President Nicolas Maduro., Washington is in an uneven pursuit of peace in Ukraine under conditions that suit Moscow, and there is also a bizarre demand in the air for Canada to become the "51st state" of the USA.

This year's conference, which begins at the end of this week, once again looks like it will be decisive.

The American delegation is led by Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, while more than 50 other world leaders have been invited.

It is taking place at a time when European security looks increasingly uncertain.

The latest US National Security Strategy (NSS), published Late last year, she called on Europe to "stand on its own two feet" and "take responsibility for its own security," fueling fears that the US was becoming less willing to serve as the bulwark of European defense.

But it was the crisis over Greenland that truly tore the fabric of the entire transatlantic alliance between America and Europe.

Donald Trump has stated on numerous occasions that he "must own" Greenland for the sake of America and global security, and for a while he did not even rule out the use of force.

Greenland is a self-governing territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark, so it was no surprise when the Danish prime minister declared that a forcible American takeover would mark the end of the NATO alliance that has served as the pillar of European security for the past 77 years.

The crisis over Greenland has been averted for now, the White House has other priorities.

Still, it leaves an uncomfortable question hanging over the Munich Security Conference: are they Security ties between Europe and America irreparably severed?

They have changed, there is no doubt about that, but they have not fallen apart.

Alex Younger, who was head of Britain's secret intelligence service MI6 from 2014 to 2000, tells the BBC that while the transatlantic alliance will not return to what it was, it is not broken.

"We will continue to benefit enormously from our security, military and intelligence relationship with America," he says.

Younge believes, like many others, that Trump was right to demand that Europe shoulder more of the burden of its own defense.

"You have a continent of 500 million people (Europe) asking a continent of 300 million people (America) to deal with a continent of 140 million people (Russia).

"These things are completely wrong. And that's why I believe that Europe should take greater responsibility for its own defense," Younger said.

This imbalance, in which the American taxpayer has practically subsidized European defense needs for decades, is the biggest reason for the Trump White House's resentment towards Europe.

But the divisions in the transatlantic alliance go far beyond troop numbers and irritation with those countries in NATO which, like Spain, do not even meet the minimum of two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) defense spending.

Russia currently spends more than seven percent of its GDP on defense, while the UK spends just under 2,5 percent.

On trade, migration, and freedom of speech, Trump's team has significantly different views than Europe.

Meanwhile, European governments are alarmed by Trump's relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his tendency to blame Ukraine for the Russia invaded on her.

The organizers of the Munich Security Conference released a report ahead of the event in which Tobias Bunde, director of research and policy, points out that there has now been a fundamental divergence with America's post-war strategy.

This strategy, he argues, relied heavily on three pillars: a belief in the benefits of multilateral institutions, economic integration, and the view that democracy and human rights are not just values, but strategic advantages.

"Under the Trump administration, all three of these pillars have been weakened or openly questioned," says Bunde.

'A surprising wake-up call for Europe'

Much of the Trump White House's thinking can be found in the US National Security Strategy.

The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) describes the document as "a real, painful, shocking wake-up call for Europe" and "a moment of enormous divergence between Europe's view of itself and Trump's vision of Europe."

The strategy prioritizes a new policy of supporting groups hostile to the very European governments that are supposed to be Washington's allies.

She promotes "cultivating resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations" and says that European migration policy "risks the erasure of civilization."

However, the document insists that "Europe remains strategically and culturally important to the United States."

"The reaction of the European majority to this strategy is likely to be the same horrified shock that greeted Vice President J.D. Vance's Munich speech" in February 2025, CSIS says.

"We are currently seeing the rise of political actors who do not promise reform or renewal, but who are very explicit about their desire to overthrow existing institutions, and we call them destroyers," says Sophie Eisentraut of the Munich Security Conference.

Narvin test

But the underlying question in all of this is "does Article 5 still work?".

Article 5 is part of the charter NATO which stipulates that an attack on one member state is seen as an attack on all.

From 1949 until a year ago, it was taken for granted that if the Soviet Union, or more recently Russia, invaded a NATO member state such as Lithuania, then the alliance would come to its aid with all its might, backed by American military might.

Although NATO officials insist that Article 5 is alive and well, Trump's unpredictability combined with his administration's disdain for Europe inevitably calls it into question.

This is what I call the "Narvin Test".

Narva is a predominantly Russian-speaking city in Estonia, on the Narva River, right on the border with Russia.

If, hypothetically, Russia tried to seize it, under the pretext, for example, of "coming to the aid of Russian compatriots," would the current US administration come to Estonia's rescue?

The same question can be applied to a future, hypothetical, Russian attack on Suwalki Corridor, which separates Belarus from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in the Baltic.

Or, to be more precise, the Norwegian-administered Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, where Russia already has a colony in Barentsburg.

Given the US president's recent territorial ambitions to seize Greenland from fellow NATO member Denmark, no one can predict for sure how Trump would react.

And this, at a time when Russia is waging a real war against a European country in Ukraine, could lead to dangerous miscalculations.

This year's Munich Security Conference should provide some answers about where the transatlantic alliance is headed.

But these answers may not necessarily be what Europe would like to hear.

BBC is in Serbian from now on and on YouTube, follow us HERE.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram i Viber. If you have a topic suggestion for us, please contact bbcnasrpskom@bbc.co.uk

Bonus video: