On 20 February 2025, the European University Institute hosted a timely online roundtable titled “After the Munich Security Conference: Which future for Europe?” Organised by the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and the Florence School of Transnational Governance, the discussion brought together our faculty experts to assess how shifting US foreign policy priorities are reshaping Europe’s security, economy, and strategic autonomy.
Moderated by Erik Jones, Director of the Robert Schuman Centre, the panel included EUI George Papaconstantinou, Trine Flockhart, Nathalie Tocci, Oksana Antonenko, Olena Snigyr, and Fabrizio Tassinari—all reflecting on the implications of the Trump administration’s new stance on Europe.
A wake-up call for Europe
The conversation opened with a timeline of events leading up to Munich. Moderator Erik Jones described the past week as “one that felt like a decade”, before breaking down the rapid developments that had reshaped the transatlantic security landscape. He explained how Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, the US special envoy for Ukraine, was expected to attend the conference on a listening tour to reaffirm US support for Ukraine. Instead, Kellogg was sidelined, and President Donald Trump bypassed traditional diplomacy by calling Russian President Vladimir Putin directly—only informing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky afterwards.
Shortly after, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Europe must take full responsibility for its own security, with no foreseeable NATO membership for Ukraine and no US security commitment for European troops in Ukraine. While Hegseth framed this as a strategic shift towards defending its homeland and deterring China, the implication for Europe was clear: it must prepare to stand on its own against Russia.
J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich doubled down on this rhetoric in a speech that many interpreted as a breaking point for transatlantic cooperation. He downplayed the threat of Russia, instead arguing that the real danger to European security lay in unregulated migration, the exclusion of far-right political groups, and restrictions on free speech. He even cited the suspension of Romania’s presidential elections as an example of how Europe is allegedly undermining democracy.
“This chronology leaves Europe largely out of the picture,” notes Jones and adds: “Europe seems to be a non-player character in the drama as it’s unfolding. There are meetings, speeches, declarations, and even indiscretions, but somehow it all feels a little bit automatic, following the rules of the game without showing signs of any real political agency. The challenge for us is to understand where Europe is headed and what possibilities it has to shape events in motion.”
George Papaconstantinou (Acting Director of the Florence School of Transnational Governance and Chair in International Political Economy at the Florence STG) acknowledged: “Europe was not prepared for Trump winning the election,” and that the continent must now confront the reality of a reduced US security commitment. He added that EU leaders didn’t expect the incoming administration to succumb to “its worst instincts—and now we have seen how mistaken we were.”
Olena Snigyr (Jean Monnet fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) stressed that the Trump administration’s moves are unfolding precisely as Moscow had envisioned: “The Kremlin’s strategic narrative remains unchanged: only a few superpowers possess true sovereignty, and only they can and should negotiate a new world order and the redistribution of spheres of influence.”
The end of the liberal international order?
Vance’s speech sent shockwaves through the conference. Trine Flockhart (Professor and Chair in Security Studies at the Florence School of Transnational Governance, EUI), who was in Munich, described the room’s reaction:
“Most people saw the speech as the end of the liberal international order. Vance threw a wrecking ball at the foundations of the transatlantic relationship—shared values, mutual respect, consultation, and a common threat perception. In one moment, all of these pillars were smashed.”
Flockhart argued that global politics is fragmenting in real time. What was once the US-led liberal international order is now splitting into two—one driven by an increasingly illiberal America and another that Europe must now carry forward.
This sentiment was echoed by Nathalie Tocci (Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali and Part-Time Professor at the Florence School of Transnational Governance):
“We have awoken to a fundamentally different reality—this is not just an administration uninterested in Europe, but one actively seeking to divide, weaken, and even destroy European integration. If we now recognise that dependencies can be weaponised, as we learned with Russia and gas, then our response should not be about securing a seat at the Trump-Putin table. Instead, we must define what we want as Europeans—our red lines, our leverage, and what we are truly prepared to do to uphold them.”
Europe’s internal divisions: a crisis from within?
The threat to Europe may not just come from Washington or Moscow—it may also be growing within its own borders, observed Fabrizio Tassinari (Executive Director at the Florence School of Transnational Governance).
He warned that much of the rhetoric in Vance’s speech already has an audience in Europe: “What worries me most is that many of the ideas in Vance’s speech—framing EU institutions as a modern Soviet Union, weaponising free speech, attacking the so-called deep state—have fertile ground in Europe itself. This rhetoric echoes what leaders like Orbán, Salvini, and Le Pen have been saying for years, feeding into existing Eurosceptic narratives. There was method in this madness: the speech wasn’t just dog-whistling to an American audience, but also to certain factions within Europe. And now, some European leaders who once saw themselves as a bridge between the US and Europe may find there is no bridge left to stand on, forcing them to make an uncomfortable choice about where they truly belong.”
Oksana Antonenko (Visiting Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) highlighted that the EU still holds enormous leverage over Russia, primarily through its sanctions regime, which has frozen €65 billion in Russian central bank assets and blocked over €190 billion in transactions. But will Europe use it?
“Europe has not only failed to prepare for a new Trump administration but has also neglected to develop a comprehensive strategy on Russia. So far, we have not been prepared to act decisively—whether by seizing Russian assets or creating a mechanism to safeguard sanctions from political pressure. With the Trump administration likely to start unwinding US sanctions, keeping EU unity will be increasingly difficult, as renewals require unanimous approval every six months. If Europe wants a real seat at the table, it must urgently develop a strategy to protect its sanctions framework from collapse.”
With growing fractures inside the EU itself, Hungary is already resisting further sanctions renewal, adding yet another layer of uncertainty to Europe’s next steps.
The debate concluded with a sobering reminder from Erik Jones: “Europe faces a critical juncture. The question is no longer whether it should take responsibility for its security, but how quickly it can do so.”
Watch the full webinar here.