Frank Talk and Limited Action
Final thoughts on the 2026 Munich Security Conference
The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World has been working hard at providing some perspective about what went down at the Munich Security Conference this past weekend. It seems worthwhile, however, to step back for a second and see if there were any larger themes to draw from the conference vibes.
The official theme of this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC) was “Under Destruction,” but perhaps the more accurate descriptor would be, “Recognizing Reality.” This started when German chancellor Friedrich Merz opening the conference with a declaration that the old rules-based world order "no longer exists." Asserting the end of the old order was a running theme throughout every panel I attended.1 Even defenders of the rules-based international order, like European leaders, acknowledged that the system needed to be overhauled. Hell, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, acknowledged that, “the [trading] system has not been quick to change to the changing world.”
Many leaders tried to sound upbeat about this transformation — or, at least, tried to accentuate the upsides. “Finally we are being honest with each other,” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal said at one panel, adding, “might makes right is front and center.” Lots of American officials claimed that in private, they were being thanked for disrupting the old way of doing things. Both in public and in private, European participants sounded more willing to acknowledge the need for Europe to stand on its own in a more geopolitically harsh environment and step up their contributions to global order and international security. From other parts of the world, there was a renewed enthusiasm for the notion that “multipolarity” opened up new strategic possibilities.
However, as previously noted by the hard-working staff, there is a difference between words and actions. It is undeniably true that the Trump administration’s rhetoric does not always match their actions — hence the TACO principle — but that principle also holds for the Europeans and other middle powers who swooned at Mark Carney’s Davos speech but still seem ill-prepared for what comes next.2
For example, if Europe really wants to get serious about standing on its own, then it cannot be too reliant on the U.S. military-industrial complex to rearm itself. One of the few constants of 2025 has been Donald Trump’s willingness to weaponize interdependence to pressure allies. One of the most persistent interdependencies in the world is relying on another country for key components of military power. Changing weapons systems and weapons contractors is no easy thing, especially given the capital outlays; the process can take years or decades.
When I asked Finnish President Alexander Stubb about this question of Europe developing a more autonomous military-industrial complex, he responded by noting that he had just gotten out of a meeting with the CEO of Lockheed where he had agreed to purchase 64 F-35 fighters.3 And while reports of a U.S. “kill switch” in the F-35 are erroneous, there is no denying that other countries using the F-35 will be increasing their dependence on U.S. suppliers.
In other words, for all the talk of the old order dying and the need for countries to adapt to that fact, I have yet to see much adaptation. There is talk about adaptation, and maybe that is a necessary first step. But if actions speak louder than words in 2026, then there has been a lot of destruction of the old and very little creation of the new.
A few other behind-the-scenes thoughts about MSC 2026 are below:
