Munich Conference 2025

Where Policy Became Theater

Photo by Michael Kroul on Unsplash

The transformation of the Munich Security Conference from private dialogue to public stage became starkly apparent this February. Over 48 dramatic hours, the Trump administration used this traditionally staid security forum to fundamentally redefine America's relationship with Europe - first through ideology, then through raw power politics.

On Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered an ideological critique of European democracy itself. By Saturday, Special Envoy Keith Kellogg had translated that critique into strategic consequences, announcing Europe's effective exclusion from Ukraine peace talks. It is tempting to think the sequence wasn't accidental and that it represented a carefully choreographed use of the conference's global platform. Knowing the vagaries of the calendar, I doubt this is true, but Kellogg’s announcement felt like a brutal application of Vance’s European doctrine. 

But why Munich? And why now?

The Munich Security Conference's evolution offers crucial context. Founded in 1963 as the "Internationale Wehrkunde-Begegnung," it began as a closed-door NATO strategy session where figures like Helmut Schmidt and Henry Kissinger shaped Cold War strategy. After the Soviet collapse, it expanded to include former adversaries, becoming a symbol of European reunification. By the 2000s, it had transformed into a premier global security forum, hosting over 350 leaders from 70+ nations.

The choice of messenger is particularly striking. Intentional or not, new foreign policy doctrines are rarely announced by Vice Presidents. VPs rarely drive foreign policy – Dick Cheney's role in the Bush administration stands as the notable exception. By having Vance deliver such a fundamental critique of European democracy from a Munich podium, rather than through traditional diplomatic channels or domestic forums, the Trump administration transformed policy into theater. The message wasn't just for European leaders, but for a global audience watching European leaders' reactions. 

Vance delivering the news also makes me wonder: who was Vance speaking for? I highly doubt these words were distilled from Donald Trump’s diary. Who in today’s world was interested in blowing up the north atlantic relationship over issues like silent prayer outside of abortion clinics and a (democratic) choice not to work with far right parties?

Regardless of who he was speaking on behalf of and the veracity of his claims, Vance systematically attacked European claims to democratic legitimacy. "The threat that I worry most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within," he declared to a stunned audience. He cited specific cases that have been messaged to present a clear leftist-authoritarian shadow falling over Europe: Romanian courts annulling an election, German police raids on anti-feminist commentators, and British laws criminalizing silent prayer near abortion clinics. His criticism of European Commission plans to "shut down social media during times of civil unrest" painted a picture of creeping authoritarianism, though with what seems to be little foundation.

Most provocatively, Vance linked a recent attack in Munich to what he called Europe's "out of control" migration, arguing that "No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants." These weren't just policy disagreements – they represented a fundamental American rejection of how Europe defines and defends democracy.

The European response was swift and unified. Chancellor Scholz's direct rebuke – "That is not appropriate, especially not among friends and allies" – broke with diplomatic niceties. His defense was rooted in historical experience: "Today's democracies in Germany and Europe are founded on the historic awareness and realization that democracies can be destroyed by radical anti-democrats." French Foreign Minister Barrot reinforced this position: "No one is required to adopt our model but no one can impose theirs on us." 

Self-reflection

What surely stuck in the European maws was also the apparent hypocrisy of Vance’s claims. No leader looking into the US from the outside today would suggest that it is more liberal, more open-minded or more democratic than it was before December 2024, let alone December 2016.

Then came Kellogg's Saturday bombshell. His declaration that European participation in Ukraine peace talks was "not going to happen" unless backed by concrete military commitments transformed Vance's ideological critique into strategic consequences. When pressed, Kellogg invoked "realism" and criticized previous multilateral efforts like the Minsk Agreement, which was the 2014 attempt to stop fighting in Ukraine during that invasion. He repeated Trump’s optimism about the obvious simplicity of the problem and that it could be solved within "days and weeks", even if the Americans seemed the only ones interested in such an outcome.

The one-two punch left conference attendees reeling. The stunned silence that greeted Vance's speech, followed by Scholz's resort to sarcasm ("You mean all these very relevant discussions about Ukraine and security in Europe?"), revealed how unprepared European leaders were for this public confrontation. When Vance met with AfD leaders during the conference – despite German objections about election interference – he seemed to be deliberately leveraging Munich's visibility for maximum impact.

What was it that drove Vance to take this chance to, in his eyes, speak truth to power and tell European leaders what he really thought to their faces ? Does he understand diplomacy and is determined to undermine it, or did he just speak in without any particular thought? My intuition is that he knew it would upset people, but I am not sure he understood the more structural and cultural challenges he was presenting. He was behaving like an American. He said what he thought and was confident in his opinions. But he didn’t totally understand where he was saying it or how.

All the world a stage

This transformation of the conference from dialogue forum to policy stage signals a broader shift in international relations. Traditional diplomatic channels, built on private negotiation and gradual consensus-building, are being replaced by public performances designed for multiple audiences. The Trump administration's choice to use Munich for these declarations suggests traditional alliance structures are being superseded by more transactional relationships.

For 60 years, the Munich Security Conference served as a barometer of Western alliance health. In 2025, it became something more: a theater where alliance fundamentals are publicly contested. The conference that once symbolized transatlantic unity now showcases its deepest divisions. This leaves us with crucial questions: If allies choose public confrontation over private dialogue, what role remains for traditional diplomacy? When international conferences become stages for policy announcements rather than forums for discussion, how do we build consensus on complex challenges? 

This becomes especially salient as the Trump administration seems determined to end professional government service - who will do diplomacy when the diplomats are all fired?

The 2025 Munich Security Conference may be remembered not just for what was said, but for how and where it was said. That itself may signal the most significant shift in how Western powers relate to each other.