The liberal order’s last stand at Munich: As it happened

“The international order based on rights and rules is currently being destroyed,” Merz claims. “This order…no longer exists.”

The German chancellor opens with language lifted straight out of Ischinger’s report, and follows its recommendations to the letter: “The most important thing is to turn the switch in our minds” and tap into Europe’s “military potential.” Merz then promises to make the German armed forces “the strongest conventional army in Europe.” 

Turning these words into reality might be a little more complicated. The German economy has flatlined without Russian energy imports, debt-financed defense spending is one of the few mechanisms keeping it out of the red, and Bundeswehr stocks are so depleted from arming Ukraine that Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced yesterday that Berlin can only donate five PAC-3 missiles for Ukraine’s Patriot air defense systems.

Read more

Freedom of speech, NATO states’ role in their own defense, migration crisis: Key takeaways from Vance’s Munich address

US Vice President JD Vance’s speech at last year’s conference is still playing on repeat in Europe. Merz defends the EU censorship policies that Vance targeted last year, saying “the MAGA culture battle in the US” is not Europe’s problem, and “freedom of speech here ends when the words spoken are against human dignity and our basic law.”

Merz’ relationship with the White House is often schizophrenic. The German chancellor has clashed with his American counterparts on trade, climate change, and so-called ‘hate speech’ laws. However, Merz has rejected French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for EU states to prioritize European-made weapons and products in public procurement, and supports continued use of American tech by European governments.

Read more

Brussels’ dependency dilemma: The EU is a victim of its own energy arrogance

“No-one forced us into this excessive dependency on the United States in which we have found ourselves,” Merz admits, adding: “this dependency was self-inflicted.”

He’s talking about reliance on the US for military protection, but his admission could equally apply to energy. EU leaders have spent four years justifying soaring energy costs and rapid deindustrialization as the price of “freedom” from dependency on Russian gas and oil imports. However, the bloc has simply swapped one dependency for another, and has left itself at the mercy of Washington by switching to American liquefied natural gas.

Merz says the Europeans will “now cast off this state” of dependence “as soon as we can.” If he had listened to his predecessors, as RT reported earlier this month, this entire situation could have been avoided.

Merz’ schizophrenic tone continues when the discussion turns to Russia. One one hand “it makes sense to talk” to Moscow, he says, adding that “we are willing to talk.” 

On the other, he says that the war will “only end when Russia is at least economically, and potentially militarily, exhausted,” and attacks Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for visiting Moscow and “achieving nothing.” 

Demanding talks while openly calling for the military and economic defeat of Russia is exactly why – as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last month – “reaching an agreement with the current generation of European leaders will most likely be impossible.”

The EU’s Kallas is now taking part in a debate on “big power politics,” as The Economist’s Zanny Minton Beddoes – who is moderating – puts it. 

It’s hard not to overstate how unqualified Kallas is here. The EU’s diplomatic chief famously didn’t know that China and Russia participated in World War II, and insisted that no foreign power has ever attacked Russia “in the last 100 years.”

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister is serving up some reality to the Europeans. He says that “many of us” outside the US and Europe “have seen the breakdown” of the “rules-based order” long before it was discussed in Munich.

He says the EU’s attachment to “symbolism, rather than realities on the ground,” has historically made it more difficult to work with the Europeans on resolving conflicts. Now, “the most ardent supporters of the old system” are willing to speak realistically, he adds.

Despite all the talk of realpolitik, there’s no better illustration of the Munich Security Conference Foundation’s world view than this: Iranian officials have been banned from attending the conference, while ‘crown prince’ Reza Pahlavi has arrived in Munich to meet with US senators.

Reza Pahlavi arrives at the Munich Security Conference, February 13, 2026

Pahlavi is the son of the US-backed Shah, who was deposed in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Pahlavi has lived outside Washington DC for 40 years, where he encourages regime change in Tehran from the comfort of his home.

His presence in Munich is entirely symbolic. While Pahlavi has declared his readiness to rule Iran in the event of a successful US regime change operation, Trump has publicly said that Iranians likely wouldn’t “accept his leadership.”

Back in the conference room, Kallas is arguing with US ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz. She says Europe contributes its fair share to the UN and NATO, and “when America goes to wars, then a lot of us go with you and we lose our people on the way.”

Waltz says that “the American people have underwritten” the post-WWII order and spends more money on propping up this system than “more than 180 countries combined.”

“When I go to people in Indiana and Georgia and North Florida that I represented…I have to look at them honestly and say it’s being well spent, and it’s not,” he adds.

Waltz brought gifts: light blue ‘Make the UN Great Again’ hats. “Otherwise known as MUNGA,” he says as Kallas takes the souvenir.

Waltz argues for American power as a force for good. He says the US operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was celebrated across Latin America, and that Trump sidestepped UN deadlock by bypassing the organization with his Gaza ‘Board of Peace’

Asked whether Trump believes in a system “where there are rules that would constrain the United States,” he deflects. “NATO is stronger because of our leadership,” he says. “The UN will be stronger at the end of this.”