Jamie Dettmer is the opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
MUNICH — This year’s unsettling Munich Security Conference featured two contrasting speeches from U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Their addresses outlined divergent visions for Europe, each capable of delivering a political shock as severe as the 2008 financial crisis or the Covid-19 pandemic.
Both leaders were candid in their remarks, challenging Europe to make fundamental and swift decisions—a daunting task for a bloc accustomed to a consensus-based approach that often moves slowly. At the national level, all 27 countries are grappling with pressing economic issues and sharp political divides.
With the state of the war in Ukraine and the mounting pressure from an increasingly assertive U.S. administration, Europe now faces a stark choice. Ideologically, it must decide between embracing MAGA-style illiberalism or adhering to the classical liberalism that has shaped its identity. Simply put, in an era of escalating great power competition, the EU must choose between becoming a subordinate to the U.S. or charting an independent course.
In Vance’s pointed critique, mirroring the aggression of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2007 speech at the summit, the vice president made it clear that Europe must align with the ideological framework of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration.
While the summit had initially focused on burden-sharing and increased defense budgets, Vance shifted the narrative. He demanded that Europe embrace Trump’s nativist ideology and authoritarian tendencies or risk losing U.S. defense guarantees and friendship. He accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to control migration, and yielding to voter fears.
Even conservative attendees were caught off guard, despite their frustrations with the bloc’s approach to free speech and migration issues. Vance’s portrayal oversimplified complex problems, and there is a distinction between self-criticism and external condemnation.
Following his speech at the Paris AI summit, where he urged Europe to loosen regulations favored by U.S. tech leaders, Vance’s message was unmistakable: conform to our preferences, or risk entering a hybrid warfare scenario that disrupts your domestic politics—an outcome already hinted at by billionaire Elon Musk’s support for Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party.
His rhetoric emphasized that MAGA ideologues see their agenda not merely as a national initiative but as a civilizational mission, one that seeks to restore Western civilization to its perceived Christian roots. Vance is positioned as a proponent of this reactionary movement.
Zelenskyy’s address, in contrast, was a rallying cry for European confidence. As a wartime leader advocating for his nation’s survival, Zelenskyy asserted that the traditional relationship between Europe and the U.S. is evolving, and that Europe must adapt to a growing divergence in values. He stated, “I really believe that the time has come that the armed forces of Europe must be created.”
In essence, it’s time for Europe to reclaim its agency.
“Europe has everything it takes. Europe just needs to unite and act in a way that no one can undermine or treat it like a pushover,” Zelenskyy emphasized.
Despite the shock value of Vance’s speech garnering more immediate attention, Zelenskyy’s call to action marked a significant shift from flattery towards a more assertive stance. “He sounded like the leader of the free world,” noted former U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul.
Although U.S. power looms large, the majority of summit attendees clearly favored Zelenskyy’s message. Vance’s remarks were met with discomfort and sparse applause, while Zelenskyy received a standing ovation.
The pivotal question now is whether Europe will act on this preference. “Maybe we should thank JD Vance for his blunt criticism of Europe, as it has made Europeans aware that Trump is also targeting them,” former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba remarked.
“In Paris, he explicitly stated, ‘Don’t try to compete with us on AI. Embrace our companies, remove all the obstacles, and then everything will be fine.’ … Then he came here and criticized both Europe’s economic and political frameworks,” Kuleba added. “Now it’s all in the hands of the Europeans. Let’s see how they respond.”
The challenge looms large. The idea of a European army was first suggested in the 1950s, with varying levels of interest over the decades and little real progress made. It has often been easier to rely on American support. However, as Europe faces financial constraints, difficult decisions between social spending and defense budgets will need to be addressed, potentially exacerbating domestic political tensions.
Uniting as Zelenskyy advocates is complicated. The influence of Trump-aligned figures, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, will create additional disruptions, while Trump may leverage tariffs to manipulate countries individually.
Nonetheless, the struggle for Europe’s future is underway.
