The US Vice-President's speech at the Munich Security Conference of 14 February 2025

The Munich Security Conference exists so that allies can talk about threats. On Friday 14 February the Vice-President of the United States used it to tell the allies that they were the threat. JD Vance said that Russia, China and other external actors were not the danger he worried about most for Europe. That danger was "the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values". He said that Romania had cancelled the results of a presidential election, that there was no room for firewalls and that there was a new sheriff in town[1]. On Ukraine he said only that the administration believed it could reach a reasonable settlement, and that Europe should provide for its own defence[1].

The same afternoon he met Alice Weidel, the chancellor candidate of the Alternative für Deutschland, nine days before the German federal election of 23 February. He did not meet Chancellor Scholz in Munich[2]. Boris Pistorius, the German Defence Minister, answered from the same stage. He said that Vance's comparison of parts of Europe with authoritarian regimes was "nicht akzeptabel" and that no one was excluded from German democracy for refusing to share the government's wording[3].

We are a think tank of Europeans born after the Maastricht Treaty. None of us has known a Europe in which the American guarantee was in doubt. The week that ended in Munich has put it in doubt, and we prefer to say so plainly.

What Washington said before Munich

The speech was the third American message in three days. On Wednesday 12 February the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, told the Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Brussels that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders was an unrealistic objective and that the United States did not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine was a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. He said that any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops, that American troops would not join a peacekeeping mission, and that such a mission should not be covered by Article 5. He asked Europeans to provide "the overwhelming share" of future aid to Ukraine[4]. The same day President Trump announced that he had spoken with President Putin, that negotiations would start immediately, and that Secretary Rubio, CIA Director Ratcliffe and National Security Advisor Waltz would lead them. He called President Zelensky afterwards[5].

On Saturday 15 February Keith Kellogg, the President's envoy for Ukraine and Russia, was asked in Munich whether Europe would take part in the peace talks. He answered that he belonged to the school of realism and that it was not going to happen[6]. Today, 18 February, Rubio, Waltz and Steve Witkoff meet a Russian delegation led by Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh. No European and no Ukrainian is at the table[7].

Taken together, the three messages describe a division of labour. The United States negotiates with Russia. Europeans guarantee the result with their own troops, without Article 5, and pay for most of what Ukraine needs. No European government has accepted that division, and it was announced before any was asked.

What Europeans have answered so far

The answers have come in two registers. The first is institutional. On 14 February Ursula von der Leyen told the conference that she would "propose to activate the escape clause for defence investments"[6]. The national escape clause in the reformed Stability and Growth Pact would let Member States raise defence spending without entering an excessive deficit procedure. It is the first concrete fiscal response to the American demand.

The second register is improvised. On Monday 17 February President Macron called an emergency meeting at the Élysée with Starmer, Scholz, Tusk, Frederiksen, von der Leyen and Rutte. Starmer said that he was prepared to consider British forces on the ground after a lasting peace agreement, with an American backstop. Scholz said that the debate on peacekeepers was "completely premature" while the war continues. Frederiksen said that her government was open-minded on troops but asked whether the United States would back Europe up if they were sent[7]. President Zelensky told the conference on 15 February that Europe must build its own armed forces so that its future depends only on Europeans[6].

Each of these answers accepts the American premise that Europe must do more. None of them yet says what Europe will put on the table in exchange for a seat at it.

On the charge of censorship

The part of the speech that concerned democracy deserves a separate answer. Vance's example was Romania. On 6 December 2024 the Romanian Constitutional Court unanimously annulled the presidential election after the declassification of intelligence reports on foreign interference and ordered the process restarted[8]. Europeans can disagree about that decision, and several of us do. A court that annuls an election owes its citizens a full explanation. But the decision was taken by a constitutional court under a constitution, and it can be contested in Romania and in Strasbourg. That is the difference between a democracy that takes a debatable decision and a regime that suppresses speech, and the Vice-President erased it.

What we ask

We ask the European Council to meet before the end of the month and to adopt a single negotiating position on Ukraine: the guarantees Europe will provide, the troops it will consider, and the condition that no settlement is final without Ukraine's consent. Rubio and Lavrov meet today, and Europe has no text.

We ask the Council to adopt the activation of the national escape clause that von der Leyen announced on 14 February, and to do it at the March European Council, so that the 2026 budgets of Member States can already use it[6].

We ask the governments that are considering troops, including the United Kingdom, to state in writing what they need from the United States as a backstop, so that Washington has to answer a European proposal[7].

We ask the Commission and the Member States to answer the censorship charge with the texts. The Digital Services Act does not oblige any platform to remove lawful speech, and the Romanian decision was a judicial act under Romanian constitutional law. Europeans should defend both on their merits.