The week that shook Europe: how Trump drastically reshaped global order

Ever since British prime minister Neville Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia in the hope of appeasing Hitler in 1938, the United States and the wider West have used the word “Munich” to criticise political appeasement or to call for military action.

In 1950, US president Harry Truman used it to justify the Korean War, saying security could not be bought with concessions. In 1965, president Lyndon Johnson cited Munich to justify escalating the Vietnam War, claiming aggression only grows when it is appeased.

US Vice President J.D. Vance addresses the Munich Security Conference last Friday.Credit: AP

So the fact that Munich, the Bavarian city in southern Germany, was the place where US Vice President J.D. Vance tore the Western alliance apart seven days ago is laden with dark historical irony.

It has left European leaders pondering whether Munich 2025 was the moment when America made it clear it stands with tyranny and extremism over the international democratic order, echoing Munich 1938, when Chamberlain met with Hitler in the hope of securing “peace for our time”.

Everything has changed in just one week. Since Vance asserted that Europe’s biggest security danger was not Russia but “the threat from within”, chastising leaders for their hostility towards free speech and immigration policies, American diplomatic efforts to bring about peace with Moscow and President Donald Trump’s thunderous declarations have put Ukraine and its Western allies in a state of shock.

The questions Europeans are now grappling with – “Is the US still an ally? Has it become an adversary?” – highlight just how drastically Trump and his administration have reshaped the framework of trans-Atlantic security relations.

British prime minister Neville Chamberlain returns from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938.Credit: Central Press/Getty Images

European leaders were – or at least should have been – aware that their relationship with a second Trump administration would be complex. But recent shocks they’ve experienced from Washington – being sidelined on peace talks and threats to the future of the NATO alliance – have escalated into a full-blown crisis. The message from Trump to Europe is clear: shape up or we may pull back.

“With his actions, [Trump] has unilaterally lifted Putin’s diplomatic isolation and provoked astounded reactions across Europe,” Bronwen Maddox, chief executive of London policy institute and think tank Chatham House, says.

“When the initial shock subsides, the significance of the change in US policy that this represents will sink in ... but at least certain truths are now painfully clear.”

The ongoing war in Ukraine is the largest military conflict in Europe since 1945, and European leaders understand how crucial it is for their security. Yet Trump’s stance is clear: that the US isn’t concerned with Europe’s opinion on how to resolve the war.

Trump’s decision to bring in Russian President Vladimir Putin from the cold has shaken Europe.Credit: Marija Ercegovac

He made waves last week when he spoke directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin about seeking an end to the conflict, catching Europe off guard. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also announced, without consulting allies, that Ukraine should not expect to regain the territory lost to Russia in 2014 nor to ever join the NATO alliance.

When asked whether Europeans would have a say in peace negotiations, Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, bluntly said: “I’m [from] a school of realism. I think that’s not gonna happen.”

The actions were widely viewed as a slap in the face to NATO allies, who are directly threatened by Putin’s expansionist goals and have contributed financially and militarily to Ukraine’s defence.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius was among the first to point out there is no art in any deal that makes the most important concessions before negotiations even begin. Among other leaders and intelligence chiefs at Munich, the word “appeasement” was thrown around.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US special envoy Keith Kellogg meet in Kyiv on Thursday.Credit: AP

Defenders of Chamberlain, at least, say the 1938 Munich Agreement bought Britain time to increase its armament in preparation for war. But few can pinpoint Trump’s strategy.

“Trump’s direct approach to Putin, combined with ... Hegseth informing allies in Brussels that the US is pre-emptively acquiescing to some of Russia’s core demands before talks have even begun, is a double blow – not only to Ukraine but to the future of Europe,” British writer and Russian military expert Keir Giles said this week.

“[Accepting] that the aggressor can retain the territory it has seized in exchange for a plea for peace – the parallels with 1938 could only be clearer if Trump had held up a note and said Mr Putin had assured him he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe.”

Yet there is some truth in the criticism. As The Wall Street Journal editorialised this week: “Europeans aren’t accustomed to being told so bluntly by US officials that Europe is impoverishing itself with its dirigisme, but someone had to say it.”

After Vance’s shocking words and surprise announcements from the Pentagon raised the spectre of American disengagement, Europeans were so furious that European Union high representative Kaja Kallas declared: “No peace deal can be made ... without Europe at the table.”

French President Emmanuel Macron cobbled together an emergency summit of European leaders where the participants promptly agreed on nothing.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, Europeans have collectively failed to rearm with the speed and scale that Russia’s unprovoked aggression demanded, notwithstanding the efforts of Poland and other frontline states and some defence innovations by the EU.

Many European governments, particularly the larger ones, have been slow and reluctant to fully back Ukraine, either due to a lack of strategic resolve or because, for decades, they have prioritised welfare over military spending.

United for Ukraine: French President Emmanuel Macron greets British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Monday.Credit: AP

Former US envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, who served in Trump’s first administration, said the US president was in a robust position despite branding Zelensky as a “dictator” in a public spat this week.

He said his former boss was “acting very assertively” and “people are responding to that”.

“He’s deliberately being provocative and aggressive to get people to respond,” he said. “Look at the way that people responded to the Munich Security Conference,” he said.

“Everyone in the world knows that the facts of that are the opposite of what Trump said. If there’s a dictator in the room, it’s Vladimir Putin. If there is a democracy in the room, it’s Ukraine. They had to suspend elections because they’re being attacked by Russia. And no, Ukraine did not start this war. Russia attacked Ukraine.”

But others believe Trump’s hostility towards Zelensky and Ukraine is real and can be traced back to his first term in the White House. In 2019, he was impeached over allegations he withheld almost $400 million in US security assistance to Kyiv in an attempt to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, then the former US vice president, and his son, Hunter, before the 2020 presidential election.

“Trump hates Ukraine,” Soviet-born US businessman Lev Parnas, who was once a fixer in Ukraine for Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told news website Politico last year. “He and people around him believe that Ukraine was the cause of all Trump’s problems.”

His antipathy for Zelensky and Ukraine is in stark contrast to his admiration for Putin, a former KGB officer who has crushed all political opposition in Russia.

Trump’s return to power and the antagonism of his administration have shattered Europe’s complacency. His threats and bluster towards NATO during his first stint in the White House and insistence that its members spend more on defence ensured 23 countries reached or exceeded the target of 2 per cent of their gross domestic product last year, compared with seven members in 2022 and three in 2014.

But he now seems uninterested in letting Europe use its delayed and insufficient contributions as leverage for a seat at the negotiating table.

Much of Trump’s approach to peace talks may not align with US interests, such as Hegseth’s suggestion of reducing American troop presence in Europe through an agreement with Moscow. However, critics argue Europe’s position is that it has allowed others to make critical decisions about its security, rather than taking control itself.

“Trump and his team didn’t think [Europe] were necessary to the talks, so they didn’t invite them. It is not a plot against Europe: it is yet another demonstration of Europe’s increasing geopolitical irrelevance,” Jeremy Shapiro, from the US program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, says.

“In the end, Europeans need to stop asking why the Americans cut them out and demonstrate that they need to be cut in. They need to show not just that they have assets, but that they can strategically deploy (or withhold) them as part of a negotiation.”

Europeans have to invest. Beefing up defences will primarily require sustained increases in national defence spending, with countries revising their fiscal frameworks and expenditure priorities to make room.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has been among Ukraine’s steadfast supporters and made a significant intervention by promising troops on the ground this week, said he would overrule his own chancellor of the exchequer and insist defence spending rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP, rather than the Treasury’s preferred 2.3 per goal.

Yet military leaders think more is needed, and even this goal has no deadline and will involve messy politicking in an economy that’s barely growing and with government finances that are a mess.

Sir Alex Younger, who served as Britain’s chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) until 2020, says the world has entered a new era where international relations are no longer going to be determined by rules and multilateral institutions.

“They’re going to be determined by strong men and deals,” he told the BBC this week, adding that Europe needs to wake up and spend big on “hard power”.

“I think that’s Donald Trump’s mindset, certainly Putin’s mindset, Xi Jinping’s mindset. It’s not Europe’s mindset. That’s the world we’re going into for a whole set of reasons. And I don’t think we’re going back to the one we had before.

“There’s an entry ticket to this conversation, it appears. And sadly, it’s not our soft power or our values.”

It is not impossible that these steps could persuade Trump to stick with a rebalanced alliance and maintain a US security guarantee for Europe. But what is certain is that without such an overhaul, Europe will be dangerously exposed.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.