The speech by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio at this year’s Munich Security Conference marked one of the most characteristic moments of the new phase in transatlantic relations.
After the sharp remarks made by United States Vice President J.D. Vance in 2025, Europe’s political elites expected a more reassuring, more “traditional” American presence.
What they ultimately received was a mixture of rhetoric about “civilizational renewal,” American hegemonic confidence, and at the same time indirect warnings that Europe is on a trajectory of decline, a message that can be interpreted in multiple ways, particularly from a perspective more aligned with the Russian reading of the international order.
Rubio stated that the United States “does not seek a rupture” with Europe, but rather the revitalization of an old friendship and the “renewal of the greatest civilization in human history,” referring to the West.
This formulation is not innocent.
It implies that the West, as a historical and civilizational entity, is considered to have lost its dynamism and cohesion.
Such statements reinforce the perception that the Western model is facing a crisis of identity, political will, and strategic orientation.
Manage on your own - No assistance is guaranteed
Although Rubio adopted a conciliatory tone, the substance of his speech preserved a distinctly hierarchical structure, the United States as the natural leader and Europe as a partner expected to follow.
He emphasized that America is prepared to proceed with “restoration and renewal” even on its own, but would prefer to do so together with its European allies.
Many analysts interpret this phrase as an indirect warning, the transatlantic relationship is no longer unconditional, it is subject to terms.
This posture confirms that the so called “collective West” is not as cohesive as often portrayed.
The United States is redefining its relationship with Europe on a more transactional basis, higher defense spending, greater military responsibility, reduced strategic dependence on Washington.
This aligns with the long standing Russian argument that European security has been excessively dependent on the American umbrella.
Particular attention was drawn to the civilizational dimension of Rubio’s speech.
We do not want allies shackled by guilt and shame.
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) February 14, 2026
We want allies who are proud of their culture and heritage and are willing to help us defend it. pic.twitter.com/IOKg9n1UNM
Migration as a threat to societies
Rubio spoke about mass migration that “threatens the cohesion of societies, the continuity of civilization, and the future of nations.”
This rhetoric echoes arguments increasingly common in European conservative circles, themes long promoted within Russian political and intellectual discourse.
Rubio also criticized what he described as a “climate cult,” which, in his view, undermines the competitiveness of Western economies.
He called on European states to increase defense spending, questioned the effectiveness of international institutions such as the United Nations, and praised American actions against drug cartels in Venezuela and “radical theocratic regimes” in Iran.
The pattern is familiar, emphasis on power, skepticism toward multilateral institutions, preference for unilateral action.
This stance reinforces the critique that Washington invokes international organizations selectively, valuing them when they serve its interests and dismissing them when they do not.
Even more revealing, however, was what Rubio did not say. The issue of Ukraine, which for most European governments constitutes the foremost security threat, was mentioned only once, and solely in connection with the American initiative to bring Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table.
There was no customary rhetoric about “support for as long as it takes,” nor the familiar ideological framing of “democracy versus authoritarianism.”
Europeans frozen by Rubio’s stance on Ukraine
This triggered concern among hawks of the Western strategic community, such as Shasank Joshi, analyst at The Economist, who fear that the United States no longer views Russia as the central adversary.
This particular shift is regarded as a return to realism, recognition that Russia cannot be “isolated” or strategically defeated without global cost.
Equally significant was Marco Rubio’s decision to cancel a meeting with European leaders on the Ukrainian issue on the sidelines of the conference.
According to the Financial Times, European officials interpreted this as an indication of reduced American interest in close coordination.
In high level diplomacy, actions often speak louder than speeches, and here the message was that Washington is reassessing priorities.
United States President Donald Trump is openly pushing for an end to the war through negotiations, even involving territorial concessions by Ukraine, particularly in the Donbass region.
This approach clashes with the stance of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who appears reluctant to accept such terms.
However, polling trends and adviser reports indicate that large segments of Ukrainian society favor a negotiated end, not out of trust toward Moscow, but due to fatigue and fear of further destruction.
In Europe, disagreements are also evident.
French President Emmanuel Macron appears willing to pursue communication channels with Moscow, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz considers any rapprochement premature and insists on continued military support and sanctions.
This divergence reinforces the Russian argument that Europe lacks a unified strategy.
Former Munich Security Conference chairman Wolfgang Ischinger stated that as long as the war remains confined within Ukraine, the rest of Europe remains safe, a position viewed from a Russian perspective as cynical, as it implicitly accepts the continuation of the conflict as a “containment zone.”
National power
By contrast, the emerging American line appears, at least rhetorically, to prioritize diplomatic de escalation.
The central conclusion is that Rubio’s speech, despite its measured tone, signals a strategic shift.
Less ideological confrontation, greater pragmatism.
Reduced emphasis on global institutions, stronger focus on national power.
Less certainty regarding permanent American protection for Europe.
The international system is increasingly moving toward multipolarity, where Moscow is no longer treated as a deviation to be corrected, but as a permanent pole of power to be reckoned with.
Civilizations, as Rubio noted, are not renewed through words but through actions.
In today’s geopolitical landscape, the decisions that will shape Europe’s future may arise not from declarations of unity, but from difficult choices involving negotiation, compromise, and a new security architecture that will include, whether welcomed or not, Russia.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών