If yesterday simply set the tone for the direction that Europe’s decisions and actions will take in an international order “under dissolution”, today demonstrates that a new doctrine about deterrence, the politics of power and its place, but also its responsibilities, in the era of the righteous of the mighty, has begun to take shape.
See how the second day at the Conference unfolded minute by minute
At the center of today’s discussions were the need for European assumption of greater responsibility, the support of Ukraine in a negotiation environment, which remains cloudy, but also the cracks that can cause in the North Atlantic Alliance any tension between allies, as for example on the issue of Greenland.
The US and China are drawing lines in a world without certainties
The day began with the “big picture” of international relations, through the long-awaited interventions of the US and Chinese foreign ministers, Marco Rubio and Wang Yi. Rubio referred to the world – based on the UN – order, only to say that “the UN could still do a lot of good things in the world.” According to him, “they don’t have solutions for the most urgent problems. Not for Iran, not for the war in Gaza, not for Venezuela, which the US liberated from a drug dictator. We don’t live in a perfect world. And we must no longer allow those who threaten our way of life to hide behind the abstract provisions of international law.” As the US Secretary of State argued, “this is what the US wants to do, so we’re asking for your help. The US does not want allies who maintain the status quo, who only manage decline. We don’t want weak, but strong, proud allies. Allies to defend our heritage. We want an alliance that moves boldly into the future. We want to fill the old friendship with new life.”
Accordingly, Wang’s speech was remarkably balanced, with an obvious aim to present the Chinese side as a pillar of stability in international politics. According to what Wang Yi mentioned, Beijing wishes to be guided by the principles of “mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and willing cooperation” in China-US relations. As he noted, “whether we can ultimately achieve this goal is up to the United States,” but, he said, there is a positive assessment because Trump has “shown respect” for Xi and China in recent comments. According to him, there are “certain people” who are trying to limit China and “discredit it”, but, as he stressed, he hopes for a better result. For Wang Yi, there are two scenarios for Sino-US relations: “The first is about a ‘logically’ aligned cooperation, with the two countries expanding their interests, which would be ‘the best outcome for both countries and the world.’ The second concerns an aggressive “disengagement from China”, in a “purely emotional, impulsive way”. Taiwan, he pointed out, remains a thorny issue. Regarding relations with the EU, he argued that Beijing and Brussels “are partners and not systemic rivals or strategic competitors”. As he pointed out, it is a “very negative thought” to see China as an adversary of the EU and it would be “toxic” to further reinforce this narrative.
Starmer – von der Leyen: Autonomy without a break with Washington
The general picture of a more specific direction in the European security policy and the assumption of more responsibilities, which will lead to a strengthening of its position on the international stage, were reinforced by the positions of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
According to Starmer, “hard power is the currency of the day and Europe must be able to deter aggression — and if necessary be prepared to fight for people, values and ways of life.” His intervention also had a practical dimension, as he announced the deployment of Britain’s aircraft carrier strike group to the North Atlantic and Arctic, alongside allies, in a show of commitment to Euro-Atlantic security. At the same time, it brought back the burden of collective defense and the centrality of solidarity in the Alliance.
For her part, Ursula von der Leyen argued that Europe “should become more independent in every dimension that affects our security and prosperity, defense and energy, economy and trade, raw materials and digital technology” and made it clear that an independent Europe does not mean weakening relations with the US. Wanting to send her own message to Marco Rubio, she said that “an independent Europe is a strong Europe and a strong Europe makes the transatlantic alliance stronger.”
Zelensky: “Europe is missing from the peace table”
The focus of the second day was of course Ukraine, as the country’s president Volodymyr Zelensky participated in a relevant panel. Zelensky described the everyday life of a war that is moving faster than politics and tried to put terms on what “peace” means at the moment. He stated that Ukraine is ready to proceed with elections, but only if there is a two-month ceasefire, because holding elections under bombardment is practically impossible. On the talks in Geneva, he said he hoped they would be meaningful, but warned that the sides often seemed to be talking about different things. At one key point, he stressed that Europe is “practically not present” at the table, which he called a big mistake. And he reiterated that Russia should not be given any hope that it can “get away with it” for the crime of invasion, insisting that the stronger the West’s stance, the more realistic peace becomes.
Rutte: Europeans are taking more responsibility in NATO
At the same panel, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte argued that it is false that the Russians are winning the war, that their advances are small and that the allies must ensure that Ukraine has everything it needs to defend, not just the front, but also cities and civilians. In another post, he directly rejected the narrative of “historical reasons” for the invasion, arguing that there was absolutely no justification, either for Crimea in 2014 or for a full-scale offensive in 2022. At the same time, he spoke of a significant shift in mindset within NATO, with Europeans taking more leadership and responsibility for their own defense.
Greenland – Arctic: New foci of tension within the Alliance
Greenland was also on the menu, even in a panel on transatlantic security. The Danish prime minister was asked directly how likely she is to have to defend Greenland from the US. At first, he tried to “warm up” the atmosphere with humor, but soon after he spoke bluntly claiming that “if one NATO state attacks another NATO state, then the Alliance ends — “game over””. According to her, Donald Trump’s interest in controlling Greenland, unfortunately, remains alive and he is absolutely serious about it. He emphasized that “honor” cannot be added to sovereignty, reminding that Greenlanders do not want to become Americans.
At the same panel, Finland’s president shifted the focus of the discussion to the Arctic as a new security priority. He spoke of a major exercise, with 25,000 NATO troops — including 5,000 Americans — in northern Norway and northern Finland, clarifying that it is not a show of force, but a preparation for scenarios. He estimated that Russia will hardly test the resolve of Article 5, precisely because this is the function of deterrence and underlined that Finland has one of the largest armies in the eastern flank.
Defence, but with conditions: European disputes over spending and nuclear
The Spanish prime minister, for his part, acknowledged that although Spain is “far from Russia”, Putin is a real threat, so the Europeans must strengthen their defense capabilities. However, he clearly differentiated himself from the ideas of nuclear rearmament, warning that a system that requires zero errors, to avoid total destruction, is not a guarantee, but a gamble. And while he spoke of the need to strengthen deterrence, he was quickly confronted with the question of why Spain is not hitting its spending targets. His response moved on the logic that it’s not just how much you spend, but also how — calling for more emphasis on “360-degree security” and less obsession with weapon systems purchases.
G7: Steady support for Ukraine amid multiple crises
In the background, diplomacy continued to work at two speeds: supporting Ukraine and managing multiple crises. The G7 foreign ministers, together with the head of European diplomacy, reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine, placing particular emphasis on how to continue supporting its energy sector, which is under direct Russian attacks.
At the same time, other major hotbeds of tension were discussed, from Gaza and Iran, to Venezuela, the Indo-Pacific, Sudan and Haiti.
Navalny case: His death from frog poison
Another important development also, which is expected to have an impact on contacts with Moscow in the near future, is the announcement, on the sidelines of the Conference, of the conclusion of the experts, regarding the investigation into the causes of the death of the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, according to which, Putin’s opponent was poisoned by a toxin, which comes from a species of frog that lives in Ecuador. The announcement was made by five foreign ministers, along with Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who called for Vladimir Putin’s conviction.
