The speech of the American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, at the Munich Security Conference It did not go unnoticed.
Faced with the harsh tone that Vice President JD Vance had exhibited the previous year – a message that many Europeans interpreted as a public rebuke -, Rubio opted for a more conciliatory stagingwith nods to the history shared between both shores of the Atlantic. However, beneath that friendlier surface, the content raised concerns.
A change in tone… but not necessarily in substance
Julianne Smith, veteran forum observer and regular attendee since 2007 both in official and academic functions, he perceived nuances. In his opinion, the style was clearly different: less confrontational, more elegant, even with a nostalgic touch. But many attendees detected parallels with the previous year’s message.
Traditionally the highest-ranking American representative in Munich He dedicates his speech to describing a global panorama loaded with shared threats. In other times, the focus would have been on the strategic struggle with China, the aggressiveness of Russia and the challenge posed by Iran and North Korea.
The new forms of hybrid and technological warfare
Instead, the vice president’s previous speech had emphasized a supposed European decline. This year, although Rubio softened the shapes, Some of the audience wondered if the background was really different.
The atmosphere in the room was ambivalent. Some breathed a sigh of relief in the absence of direct attacks. Others commented in the hallways about their concern about perception, installed in sectors of the current US administration, that Europe is going through a civilizational crisis.
For Smith, what is at stake goes beyond a specific speech. The strategy promoted by the Donald Trump administration has introduced a structural shift in transatlantic relations. He does not believe that we can return to the previous status quo, although that does not imply a definitive break.
Both parties continue to have clear common interests:
- Economic cooperation
- Political coordination in international forums
- Security alliances
- But the element that is in short supply today is trust.
The call “Greenland incident”, when the American president suggested that he could take control of the territory – linked to NATO ally Denmark – even by force if necessary.
On the other hand, there is the sudden suspension of intelligence and security support to Ukraine in March of last year. Although intelligence cooperation resumed days later, security support did not return to previous levels.
These events, he maintains, have left their mark. The relationship is not broken, but it is transformed. And it will probably never look like it did in the last 80 years.
The silence about Ukraine
If there was a moment that particularly caught our attention, it was the total absence of references to the war started by Vladimir Putin against Ukraine. B – just a few days after the fourth anniversary of the start of the conflict – and not mentioning the issue was, for many, almost inconceivable.
The war has acted as a powerful element of cohesion between Europe and the United States, but also with partners such as Australia, Japan or South Korea. He has articulated a common effort to sustain Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression.
That is why the omission was so commented on. In an auditorium full of European security experts, not once alluding to this shared project was interpreted by many as a political signal in itself.
A Europe that is rearming itself
Despite the tensions, the message from the European side is clear: the continent is And not only in budgetary terms.
This year’s edition showed significant new features:
- Notable presence of European defense startups
- Large companies in the sector exhibiting technological innovations
- Systems already tested on the Ukrainian battlefield
- Intense debates on strategic autonomy and own capabilities
For Smith, the moment is historic. Europe is redefining its security role, and this inevitably alters the transatlantic balance. Far from the image of passivity that is sometimes projected from WashingtonEuropeans are taking on greater responsibilities.
Rubio’s speech, therefore, responded to the headline indirectly: it was not an open confrontation, but it did not dispel doubts either. The tone was softer; the content, more ambiguous. And in a context of profound transformations, each silence weighs almost as much as the words.
