The Munich Security Conference (MSC) 2025 underscored the fragility of Europe’s security and defense landscape, revealing vulnerabilities, both internal and external. With President Donald Trump now in his second term for over a month now, his “America First” agenda has solidified into a tangible shift in US policy.
Prioritizing the well-being of the United States above all else, Washington’s recent actions have prompted a re-evaluation of the transatlantic partnership and the future of European security amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
To delve deeper into these complex issues, Wyoming Star (WS) spoke with Ruchi Anand, a leading expert in international relations at the American Graduate School in Paris.
Source: AGS’s social media
WS: Following the MSC, what do you see as the most significant geopolitical challenges facing Europe, particularly in the context of shifting US foreign policy priorities as we saw reflected by top US officials’ statements at the MSC?
The [MSC] conference highlighted a growing rift in the transatlantic relationship, with the US signaling a reduced commitment to European security. US officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance, indicated a withdrawal of US support for European security, effectively leaving NATO allies to fend for themselves against ongoing geopolitical threats.
Europe is adapting to the reality of a changing US foreign policy by increasing defense spending, exploring the creation of a European army, and focusing on strategic autonomy.
A tough call amid the EU democratic deficit and with more far-right governments gaining popularity in Europe!
The internal unity of the EU is shaky and needed to assert its role in global security matters. While the shifting US stance poses challenges, it is also prompting Europe to become more self-reliant and proactive in its defense and foreign policy initiatives. Europe is planning to adapt by increasing defense spending, the European Army Initiative to explore the possibility of building more independent military structures to enhance the continent’s security and reduce reliance on external powers, improving coordination among European Union member states, strengthening the European defense industry, and enhancing the EU’s foreign and security policy.
WS: How might a potential reduction in US security commitments impact the European economy, both in the short and long term? What adjustments might European nations need to consider?
With the US reducing its role internationally with a more isolationist stance, the long-term economic impact will depend on how effectively Europe balances its defense spending with its economic needs.
This will require reallocation of funds from other areas, including social programs or development aid, which could strain public finances. Many countries might face pressure to meet NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP. For economies already struggling or facing fiscal constraints, this could be a huge challenge.
A perceived decline in the US security umbrella could create market volatility as investors react to the uncertainty about Europe’s geopolitical stability. This could result in short-term economic fluctuations, including changes in stock prices, currency exchange rates, and foreign investment patterns.
However, European defense companies also cybersecurity and AI, may see a rise in stock prices as governments increase defense procurement to fill the security gap left by the US.
A properly managed transition to more autonomous defense capabilities could allow European economies to stabilize while still maintaining a competitive global position. To reduce the economic and geopolitical impact of a reduced US security presence, Europe will need to deepen diplomatic and economic ties with other global powers, including China, India, and other emerging economies.
Strengthening multilateral frameworks for cooperation will be key to managing both security and economic risks.
WS: In what ways, if any, do you believe changes in US foreign policy could influence immigration patterns and security considerations within Europe?
A more isolationist US stance, including its withdrawal from international agreements on refugee protection or resettlement could lead to more migrants seeking asylum in Europe, as the US may no longer be seen as a viable destination for displaced populations. This might result in increased migration flows due to instability in regions traditionally affected by US engagement, as well as new security challenges related to terrorism and cross-border crime.
In response, Europe may need to enhance its defense capabilities, develop stronger immigration management policies, and ensure that it is equipped to handle the dual challenges of migration and security threats while maintaining its humanitarian values.
A tough mix to balance!
WS: US Vice President JD Vance stated that Europe’s biggest threat is “from within,” citing issues like free speech and immigration. What is your perspective on this assessment?
The European and American understanding of freedom of speech and expression are similar but different: while Europe has more restrictions on Free Speech than the US, it sees more public demonstrations, protests and strikes. These restrictions go with the essence of Europe.
In his mention of immigrants and refugees in Europe, particularly the influx following the refugee crisis of 2015, Vance may not be fully wrong.
European countries have accepted many migrants, refugees and immigrants and due to strong human right laws. Entry from one EU country allows access to all EU countries due to free movement across borders. This can pose a real security threat to EU’s stability, law, and order, and management of terrorism, crime, human trafficking, etc.
It also poses a social problem, making these societies less homogenous and more prone to social conflict and upheavals. Taxpayers have begun to feel burdened by the pressure that an added population that may not be economically viable entails.
WS: How are Vance’s remarks being received within European political circles?
The reaction to Vance’s statement within European political circles has been mixed:
- Right-wing and nationalist political figures in Europe who advocate for stricter immigration policies and defense of free speech have largely agreed with Vance’s assertion, viewing it as a validation of their concerns about national identity and the integration of immigrants, e.g. Parties such as France’s National Rally, Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), Italy’s Lega;
- Centrist and left-wing European politicians may view Vance’s statement as an oversimplification or even a misreading of Europe’s challenges. They tend to agree that immigration poses complex questions for social integration but that it can be managed without threatening European values.
WS: Vance also criticized European politicians for refusing to work with “hard-right” parties. What are your thoughts on this aspect of his message? Does it reflect a shift in the US’s approach to European politics?
Vance’s criticism could imply that far-right parties should not be dismissed since this exclusion might not be conducive to long-term stability.
However, the Trump administration has openly expressed support for the broader hard-right spectrum in Europe representing a realignment in US-EU relations. Far-right groups in Europe will feel emboldened with support from powerful allies like the US.
WS: To what extent do you believe Europe is prepared to take on a greater role in its own defense, given the potential for reduced US involvement? What are the key obstacles and opportunities in achieving greater European strategic autonomy?
The lack of consensus on defense policy, the infamous EU democratic deficit, the fear of giving up sovereignty to a supranational body, the fragmented nature of Europe’s defense capabilities, varying defense priorities, budget constraints, and capabilities, makes the EU lack a cohesive, unified foreign and defense policy that would be necessary for military action. Despite these obstacles, there have been significant strides made in European defense cooperation, particularly under the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) of the European Union.
The Trump administration’s policy shift coupled with the crisis in Ukraine has galvanized European nations to reconsider, with a new energy, how they would defend themselves in the event of a larger conflict.
If European countries can overcome these non-negligible hurdles, they will be in a stronger position to navigate an increasingly complex global (dis) order.
