European Security is also Global Security: The Old Order and The Munich European Security Conference 2026 after DAVOS. What next in uncertain times?

Summary  international events for March 2026

The statements ushered by some European Leaders, “that the rules based order has ended”, is hugely challenging for institutions who depend on laws, and agreed principles to function, also those nations described as the Global South, have responded by stating that they need the rules based order to work, which includes the rule of law and the treaties, such as those under the UN Geneva Convention to Work and the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT)  and New Start which has expired on 5 February 2026. The Challenge is to continue to in some way, and for its principles to remain, as the world gears up to what some analysts are beginning to describe as a greater escalation in world conflicts and possibly the start of a World War III given the number of conflicts around the world. As President Macron of France  and PM Sir Kier Starmer of the UK have stated there is no Peace without Europe, even if some leaders will seek to negotiate security without Europe. Geopolitics make it such that Europe must deal with war in Ukraine, its interest and future cannot be negotiated without Europe, as Russia threatens the EU.[1]

Such is the scenario that the USA has a department of War, rather than Defence making dramatic geo-political decisions, supporting a 12 Day war in the Middle East (13-24 June 2025), and fending off Russia in Ukraine by providing financial support. It has rejected the continued funding  of NATO, emphasising instead that Europe needs to defend itself, rather than relay on the USA  to continue funding European Defence. After the initial diplomatic surprises, this message did not fall badly, the UK Conservative Government which has seen a decline in military and defence spending, reversed it commitments in 2024-2025, and under Labour increased spending to 3% and then 5% of GDP on UK military Defence. This was seen as vitally important and a requirement of a classical premiss in International Relations that a state must be sovereign and raise its own army for defence, this is a basic traditional requirement, especially with increasing threatening activity within and outside of the state targeting  the UK. Any threatened decline in NATO, during this interim period between a more independent NATO and a more robust organisation in infrastructure, it is the case that a Coalition of the Willing, France, Germany and the UK, that there should be early warning systems in place and infrastructure projects with EU allies, such as Spain. [2]

Germany has also been forced to this position, and it has generally been accepted more warmly in Nordic states which have felt Russian influence and threats after the Ukrainian-Russo war which began almost four years ago.  A more fluid triple Alliance  or Coalition of the Willing has included Germany, France and the UK, taking decision together on strategic defence decisions this has been evident in diplomatic statements by the Heads of State of these countries and its diplomats at DAVOS in January 2026. Although, Italy and Spain have agreed a more significant increase in spending and support to NATO, and although both countries support the position in defence of Ukraine now more strongly, European Leaders will differ in views and decisions made at each strategic decision making point, as the Coalition of the Willing develops and deepens its partnerships, the public can expect those European Leaders to continue to fall into agreement on Ukraine and European Security. NATO buys equipment from the Ukraine and there is no evidence that Russia wants to stop the war in Europe now. These are the thoughts of President Macron, of France.[3] He called for resilience, and to re-engage and to convergence on policy with the US on Ukraine [as long as there is agreement]. [4]

It is not right for Europe to give up soo easily on the European liberal foundations on which decades of peace, post 1945 has been based and those institutional arrangements and legal agreements continue to be the principles for negotiation and diplomacy today. It would be a huge mistake to do soo, this is what Europe has stood for too long. The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission at the European Security Conference on 14 February 2026, does reflect the incredible challenge which European Leaders such as President Macron of France and the Prime Minister Kier Starmer have had to adjust economies, policies and diplomatic decision to a changing and uncertain (often fast moving situations), especially as the Special Relationship between the UK-USA changes and as the UK-EU relationship has been reset by politics under a Labour Government.  

The USA had been in negotiations with Iran over nuclear enrichment, its request was that it should stop, reducing any threat to Isreal and to reduce support for terrorist groups which often act on or near Isreal in Lebanon ( Hezbollah, and Hamas) with support from Iran. It is unclear what legal case prompted the Israeli-US attack at this stage.  Intelligence may have been shared just before the events that took place or shortly after 28 February.  President Trump has declared this a US-Israeli lead Operations, with the intention of preventing any future enrichment of uranium by Iran. Some of the US senior Leadership like Secretary of State Mr Rubio, have declared that the US had no choice, but to strike in support of Israeli lead action.  Others, believe that Iran was set to continue to enrich and that no further inspections of sites by international authorities had taken place.

Where are we now one month after the Munich European Security Conference? Ultimately, the desire for some kind regime change, following the murder of thousands of Iranian protesters a month before, has been increasingly strong. However, real regime change would require US boots on the ground, experts at Chatham House believe that at this stage President Trump will not commit to removing the regime which has oppressed many of its citizens for many decades. It is short sighted however, to say that functioning clerical and theological regime has no supporters, far from it, mourners line the streets of Theran, commentators state that the institutions and the regime had provided institutionalised state government functions and jobs to a very large bureaucracy which has been in place for decades.  It is fully imbedded in the state and unlikely to be replaced easily, if at all.

Two major wars, on two fronts the first in the Middle East of regional proportions fought out in the Isreal-Iran war, which has extended the conflict initiated in the 12-day war earlier in 2025. Impacting Israeli citizens,  Lebanon, and Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and has pulled the USA into conflict. The other in the Europe, the Ukraine-Russo war now in its fourth year, which has attracted global condemnation and financial support for Ukraine from across the world, pushing Russia into a war economy scenario that is crippling normal state functions, subjugation civil society and descent in the process. 

One important significant change since the Conference closed is the Isreal-US war on Iran, which began about two weeks later, this is already having an enormous impact which will change the priorities of countries attending the Conference. 13 US soldiers have been killed in the conflict and 300 have been injured since the start of the war.[5]Some of those losses have taken placed on allied territory bases in Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan Airbase. Since 2 March Reuters has reported thousands of deaths in the Middle East. At point of reporting Iran had at least 3,461 dead, 1,551 civilian deaths including 236 children. 104death were reported in a US attack on Iranian ship off Sri Lanka on 4 March. Isreal has also suffered losses from Iranian Lebanese attacks, civilians have been hiding from attacks, there are at least19 casualties. In the UAE 10 people have died, and it has lost 5 of its solders. Both Lebanon and Iraq have suffered losses, 1,238 people died in Lebanon, including 124 children. Iranian backed proxy fighters have been targeted and there have been 400 deaths of Hezbollah fighters. A total of 100 people have died in Iraq amongst the Shi’ite affiliated groups of Iran, Kurdish affiliated groups with the US, and amongst civilian casualties.

Events since the War in the Middle East

The USA had been in negotiations with Iran over nuclear enrichment prior to the new conflict, its request was that Iran should stop certain activity, reducing any threat to Isreal and to reduce support for terrorist groups which often act on, or near Isreal in Lebanon ( Hezbollah, and Hamas) with support from Iran. It is unclear what legal case prompted the Israeli-US attack at this stage.  Intelligence may have been shared just before the Isreal-US attack on Iran on  28 February 2026 .  President Trump has declared this a US-Israeli lead Operations, with the intention of preventing any future enrichment of uranium by Iran. Some of the US senior leadership like the acting National Security Advisor, Secretary of State Micheal Rubio, have declared that the US had no choice, but to strike in support of Israeli lead action.  Others, believe that Iran was set to continue to enrich uranium in 2025, which was in breach in international agreements and so no further inspections of sites by international authorities had been allowed to take place. The US is seeking a deal with Iran and negotiations continue, but the listed requests have been rejected as by representatives of Iran ‘maximalist’. However, on 30 March President Trump described the new Iranian Government, as more reasonable than the one before (Radio 4 PM), but that the Strait of Hormuz must be opened, otherwise there is no deal..

War in Iran from 28 February 2026

Iran received heavy missiles strikes on key military sites on 28 February 2026. These strikes caused damage to the Iranian Leadership which control the IRGC, its Republican Forces have in turn been striking neighbours, such as Kuwait, Oman and even Saudi Arabia. Despite apologising some days afterwards, the leadership in Iran is clearly damaged without the Ayatollah Khamenei, the  Supreme Leader. Within days of his death the Group of 12 Leadership Council had already selected his replacement on 8 March 2026; his son Mojtaba Khamenei, who is also a relatively unknown Cleric was appointed as the next Ayatollah (Forbes and BBC News).  It is believed that this new appointment is very unlikely to change or democratise Iran to conform with Western ideology or political will. Iran’s leadership is hurt, and close members of the family of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have also died during the joint Israeli and US attacks. The regime is demonstrating its resistance by appointing a replacement soon after his death and is asserting its authority, with little external dialogue, between neighbouring state leaders, the conflict has escalated, there is as yet little public dialogue from the Leadership about its future.  (Today BBC Radio 4).[6]

Oil crisis looming – historic rise in prices

The impact on the global economy is yet not quantifiably clear, although the price of oil has already reached $110-$116 per barrel. The IEA published a report on 20 March describing the rise of oil prices as significant as those seen in the 1970s and are now at a historic high in the global oil economy. With the Strait of Hormuz closed by Iran, the delivery of millions of barrels of oil a day are said to be blocked, causing the most dramatic disruption in oil transportation and trade. The Strait normally carries about 20% of the global trade in oil.[7] “The loss of these flows has tightened markets significantly, pushing oil prices above $100 per barrel and driving even sharper increases in refined products such as diesel, jet fuel and liquefied petroleum gas LPG”.[8] (IEA). The Transport costs and other costs involved in consumption are likely to rise further. Iran has about 12-15% of the world’s oil reserves and countries such as India, who rely on about 40-50% of the country’s imports are dependent on the safe passage of oil through the Straits of Hormuz.(Reuters 11 March).  India also purchased oil from the Middle East. It therefore welcomed the release of 400M barrels of emergency oil, held largely by member countries, to rein in prices which have soared. It is not however a member of the IEA, but an Associate Member. Reuters reported that the Indian Government welcomed the move but had no intention of joining the International Energy Association ahead of the next G7 Meeting. The Oceania Area has access to that emergency reserve now and Europe will have access to reserves from the end of March 2026 from within its own held reserves.[9]

The other significance of the Strait of Hormuz

Shadow fleets are also more  vulnerable to attack, and these are less regulated vessels which transport under any flag to countries which may be subject to sanctions.  (Lloyds Register) Global consumers could soon feel under pressure to look for oil elsewhere, even sanctioned oil from Russia.  This possibility impacts strategies touched upon during the European Security Conference, in which European Nations along with those from the Southern hemisphere met to discuss how to react to changing European demands for defence and geopolitics, which includes putting pressure on Russia’s war economy, forcing sanctions on Russian oil elsewhere, as a means of ending the war in Ukraine.  Without funds, Russia cannot continue to fight, whilst it loses tens of thousands of soldiers each month, at a faster rate than it can recruit. If the  war on Iran continues the pressure to look for oil elsewhere can become a risk. There is hope of some scope for negotiation, as President Trump it  is said by the US Administration to be speaking to the Iranian regime’s Government and that as a result he has confirmed in the public media on 27 March,  that he has been gifted 8-10 tanker ships full of oil. This sounds like a gesture of diplomacy, with up 20 ships being released and counted on 30 March 2026 (Today Programme Radio 4).

Monitoring by the IEA

In March 2026, The International Energy Agency (IEA), stated that the war is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. The flow of “oil plunging from 20mb/d before the war to a trickle”. Gulf countries have cut back on oil production by 10mb/d and supply losses will increase. Recovery will be dependent on the duration of the conflict and supply. Any increase in supply is likely to come from none-OPEC producers.” Since attacks on Qatar’s oil. the Ras Laffan facilities, these supplies were now closed, since 2 March, impacting the availability of oil for fuel (LNG).[10]  

The IEA states “The disruption of transit via the Strait of Hormuz has reduced LNG supplies from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates by over 300 million cubic metres per day since 1 March. This translates into a loss of over 2 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas supply every week.” On 11 March IEA Members then unanimously agreed to make available 400mb/d of oil available from emergency reserves.”[11] Prices have also risen  by $20/bbl to $92/bbl, with oil tending to float around $70/bbl.  Supply reductions have been seen in Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Prices may inevitably rise; if supply is reduced and flows do not return to some level of normality. Prices of oil in Asia have also risen and there has been some supply adjustments and some rationing in some countries.

As Iran escalates conflict to its neighbours, by bombing Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Qatar and the UAE, threatening a mix of infrastructures, which impact the security in the region and the global economy.  The rise in oil prices will be unwelcome, and although the world has oil reserves elsewhere, in the USA  and North Sea, no one is likely to want to fight a prolonged war. None-OPEC countries such as Russia may well seek to increase production to fill gaps in the market, feeding other conflicts elsewhere and the Russia war economy.  This is clearly undesirable. Food security is impacted as fertiliser is produced and transported through the Middle East and the Strait.

Political impact on the USA

This is not likely to be a popular war for the USA after a  20- year war in Afghanistan, complicated by Iraq wars and Syrian conflicts in more recent year.  Smaller wars fought by Isreal in the Middle East draw on the defence of the USA, are always highly charged and visibly spill over into conflicts in Lebanon such as the one we are witnessing now.  These types of conflicts require US intervention more regularly than a decade ago and more importantly since 7 October 2024, where Isreal’s security is paramount – we see more defined pro-Israeli policies from the US Administration and action in support of  Israel’s self-defence, triggered by agreements and mechanisms under the Trump Administration. This includes support for attacks on neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, who have Hezbollah on its territory, both an enemy to Isreal and the USA. Fears of reprisals are real as antisemitic attacks on charity ambulances that serve Jewish communities have taken place in Golders Green in London on 24 March and other antisemitic attack have taken place the week before, in Belgium and the Netherlands are claimed by the same group but are not directly linked to Iran.[12] Antisemitism is reportedly on the rise in countries such as France, since before the Isreal-Hamas war in Gaza began. An unexplained explosion at an American oil refinery, Valero in Arthur Texas,  on 23 March; are a cause of concern and are not confirmed Iranian reprisals.[13] Wars of this kind can ignite conflict around the world, directly or indirectly by pro-Iranian groups.

The UK has received some pressure not to allow use of its bases in the Middle East – as a measure of self-defence only of British citizens in the Middle East, it has opened some of its bases in the region, whilst not condoning any ‘illegal’ attacks on Iran by the US-Isreal joint missions, it has refused access to others. The UK’s RAF base Akrotiri in Cyprus was sent a warning shot early on by an unarmed drone attack a week after the conflict began, causing no casualties. Weather Iranian Missiles could hit Diego Garcia was debatable. But two Iranian ballistic missiles reached its airspace and were destroyed (BBC/CNN/The Wall Street Journal). Yvette Cooper the UK Foreign Secretary and the UK PM Sir Kier Starmer have said that bases in Cyprus cannot be used by the US.[14] The UK is prepared to continue with defensive arrangements and wishes to see an end to the conflict; it is not in the UK interests to be drawn into a wider war in the Middle East now. Iranian missiles can travel to the Island, which is now debated British Territory until it is formally handed over to Mauritius. The US Government believe relinquishing the Island to be a mistake, and arrangements to do so have paused. The UK PMs statements focus on deescalation and strengthened by the statement that “this is not our war”, “we do not want to be dragged into this war”. (Parliament Liaison Committee 22 March).

On 24 March, Isreal stated that it would continue the war. The US called for talks and President Trump stated  Iran would negotiate peace, Theran says that there are no negotiations, but there are attempts to open official dialogue, after identifying potential Iranian statesmen to talk with.[15]  On 25 March, a plan was received by Theran, but the Government rejected a 15-point Peace Plan mediated through Pakistan, it was described by Iran ‘as extremely maximalist’.[16] In return Iran  has asked for all attacks to stop on Hezbollah in Lebanon and on Iran, the 15 point plan which was rejected included nuclear inspections, a roll back of its nuclear programme, limits on missiles and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.[17] It should not be assumed as Kier Starmer has pointed out that this war will end swiftly.  This may have been President Trump’s miscalculation as civilian death tolls are rising in the Middle East. US soldiers have also died. Alternatively, more privately, it could be one of a variety of scenarios which had been anticipated.

The impact on humanitarian relief and the most vulnerable

These are highly sensitive times in International Relations, and of concern to those who uphold the UN rules and the international rights-based order in international justice, international law and human rights. Wars inevitably result in the long-term cuts to aid, cuts to the most in need and the most innocent. Human rights and aid workers are badly affected by wars, children by disease, and malnutrition. Gordon Brown a Former Labour Prime Minister has called for a specialised court at the UN to deal with crimes and abuses of children, these are the most vulnerable casualties of war, and they are subject to crimes often ignored, or receive little justice in times of war. On 28 February 148 people were killed in Theran, mostly small children in a girl’s school next to an IRGC centre. These are the first casualties of the conflict. The UN is concerned, as public reports indicate US fire may have caused these deaths.  These events are likely to make the Trump Administration more un-popular at home and internationally, as it seeks to justify its involvement.

European Security in global structures

European Security is of major concern to the world, as the balance of power is being challenged daily due to threats from Russia and proxies around the world, who support President Putin and who do not challenge the position of Russia’s invasion into a sovereign territory which is not Russian, with either sanctions, or policy or political statements. Although these nations are fewer in number to the Allied forces, this has unbalanced forces in Europe. NATO is likely to receive much less, if not a much-reduced fund from the US.  It is likely to seek to fund itself from European funds and EU nations have increased funding since 2024, including UK commitments. This also means responsibility for financial support for the war in Ukraine by European nations, despite President Trumps continued political support for Ukraine and it’s President against Russia, it is unlikely to continue to fund the war at its full capacity, as that experienced under the previous Administration of President Biden. Following MAGA policies to invest and fund US centred programmes first, President Trump has indicated to Republican voters, who support reinvestment policies, that these funds could be spent elsewhere.  Adjustments have been made elsewhere.

Soo what are the options for European Security?

The war in Ukraine, is now in its fourth year, without resolution, but with increased diplomatic interventions by all nations. The Trump 20 Point Peace Plan has undergone several iterations in 2025 and early 2026 and was largely unacceptable to the Ukraine Government and uncommitted to by President Putin. Peace can only occur once there is a cessation in the war, despite both sides having casualties, Ukraine had its energy infrastructure attacked during the most difficult time of winter, and it has continued to fight on for every village and town. Russian casualties and desertion is also extremely high, with up to 40,000 casualties each month, more soldiers than it is capable of recruiting.

NATO was initially shocked by the prospect  of being defunded by one of its core members, but it has swiftly accepted to look at things differently, and to take greater degrees of responsibility for Eureopan Security from within the funds of European nations. All European Leaders and the President of  the European Commission have accepted this position, and funding commitments by a number of key nations have already increased significantly so that continuity for support of Ukraine is likely to be funded by European countries going forward. NATO is unlikely to dissolve, and European nations appear more committed in its continued existence at every step.

The most significant diplomatic discussions are often had on the side lines of international conferences, like those in Munich in February 2026. This gives viewers, the public, journalists and academics, IR analysts and researchers the opportunity to get a flavour of current agreements and disagreements in a neutral and safe space. And hints at the direction of travel.

What was discussed at the European Security Conference – 12-15 February 2026

There were generally agreed European and global perspectives and agendas. For example. The Conference was well attended by hundreds of world leaders representing nations, and international institutions who support the old system and who wish to continue with diplomacy. This included Chinese, Japanese, and Australian, representatives from the Middle East, Latin American and African countries.

Its top topics include: ‘In an age of destruction’:

• Defence
• Global Order
• Human Security
• Sustainability
• Technology

This paper largely focuses on two areas. European defence and global order, covered in topics on the first two days of the Munich Conference. In addition to one European case study, Germany.

Heads of States summary -short analysis

What was said at the European Security Conference: “Principled and Pragmatic”

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and PM Sir Kier Starmer MP

The post-Brexit world is no longer as expected, largely due  to geopolitical conflicts and instability. At the Conference Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, described the necessity for change and adaption, where “defence had not been seen as a primary role in Europe”, she accepted some role in the idea that Europe had failed to defend itself, which she described as “an uncomfortable truth now for many decades. Europe needs step up and to take responsibility, admittedly it has taken some shock therapy… there is [now] an increase of 80% in defence spending in the EU since the start of the war in Ukraine. A mobilisation of E800bn air missiles defence and drones and military defence. And we have been relentless in support for Ukraine, we include a E90bn loan to Ukraine, which they will not have to pay back, if Russia pays reparations. By 2028 defence is expected to exceed the US expenditure on defence last year, we must develop and extend strategically into Space, in intelligence, deep strike capabilities, no taboo [area] can be left unchallenged”.[18]  

She made a firmer commitment on defence security actions by stating that this is a “European awakening, and it is only the start of what we need to do. It is time to bring NATO’s Mutual defence Clause to life, Article 42.7, it is not optional, it is our obligation, for good reason our collective commitment to stand by each other, in case of aggression”. [19]“One for all and one for one, this is Europe’s meaning, built on trust, we must be ready and must be faster, we need to use the Treaty we have – a UK joint expeditionary force which is complementary to NATO. And 10 EU countries to deter Russia in the High North, with an operation command. Also, the Coalition of the Willing, its HQ in Paris providing security guarantees for Ukraine involving more than 30 states, some outside of the UK. We need to formalise our new security collaborative, working with our closest partners, like Norway or Canada, defence and security partnerships, in this volatile time. The UK-EU must come closer. 10 years from Brexit our futures are this bound [together], the UK and EU are in this together…this is the common promise”.” She went on to describe closing the defence capability gaps, driving up innovation in defence, and new technologies, AI and software. Europe needs a new structure in this world order, so that Europe can defend its democracy and way of life…its’ peace cannot be taken for granted, investing in security goes beyond hardware… freedom is what Ukraine is fighting for today, in a quest for an  independent Europe… it will remain Europe’s rason de etre. Long live Europe ”.[20]

The PM Kier Starmer MP spoke at the Conference after Von der Leyen, stating  that “for many years for  most people in the UK, war has been remote, something that concerns us deeply, that concerns us far away, but now we feel the solidity of peace, the very ground we stand on, softening under our feet. It is the job of leaders to be ahead of these seismic shifts. Yet that is  against the grain of history…[rearming later when disaster is upon them] this time must be different.  All the warning signs are there. Russia has proved its appetite for aggression, bringing terrible suffering to the Ukrainian people.  Its hybrid  threats are extended across our continent, threatening our security and our social contract, collaborating with populists who undermine our values,  using disinformation to sow division, using cyber-attacks and sabotage to disrupt our lives, deepening the cost-of-living crisis. Russia has made a huge strategic blunder in Ukraine, [with huge losses], Russian casualties reach more than 1M, but Russia is rearming, reconstituting its armed forces and industrial base. “[21]

“NATO has warned that Russia would use military force against the Alliance by the end of the decade. Whilst we seek a peace deal… Russia’s rearmament will only increase. We do not seek conflict, but a lasting peace, a return to peace and the rule of law… We are not at a crossroads today. The road ahead is clear, we must build our hard power, we must be able to deter aggression and yes we must be ready to do whatever we can, to fight, to protect our people and our way of life, And as Europe we must stand on our own two feet… Being bolder, putting away petty politics, making a more stronger acting together in a more European NATO.  Deeper links in Europe, across defence, politics and tech…this I how we will build a better future.”

“We are not the Britain of the Brexit Years anymore, because we know that in a dangerous world, we would not take control by turning inward, we would surrender it.  I will not let that happen…I am clear that there is no British Security without Europe and no European Security without Britain.  This is the reality of Europe, and we must crucially do this with the United States. We recognise that times are changing and Europe must take responsibilities for our own defence… I would agree that the world has changed fundamentally, that we must find new ways to uphold our values and rule of law, but in responding to that change, we must not disregard what has sustained us for 80 years, that could prove a moment of destruction. Instead of rupture it could be a time of radical renewal.”[22] He described a vision of greater European autonomy, more burden sharing and more diversity, decreasing some dependences, finding generational investments that move us from dependence to interdependence.  “ NATO is a phenomenon in European history after centuries of NATO, peace was founded, after hundreds of years of war, an institution which is worth defending”.

The European Security Conference Heads of States statements do demonstrate a desire for much deeper links and cooperation between the UK and Europe including economic ties between Britain and the EU. He also stated that US and Canadian and NATO Allies would join new initiatives to combat Russian threats in the Region. This is a time of hard power politics in international relations, the great powers US, China and Russia are making the biggest decisions which are about conflicts and causing tipping points of war or the threat of economic crisis through the political weaponisation of US tariffs. Although Russia seems somewhat weakened by four years of war, it’s size and population and weapons make it a formidable force and a real threat in world politics. Middle powers like the UK are also aware of the power tensions and are reacting to the international stage of power conflict, “We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age”,[23] Kier Starmer stated in February 2026 that there will be deployment in a powerful show to Euro Atlantic security. Enhancing nuclear co-operation with France, to protect NATO, “in a crisis an adversary could be confronted by our combined strength”.

Other Ministers from Foreign Affairs Ministries in Japan, Latin America and representatives from Ukraine attended the Conference. During the meeting, countries called for the strengthening of European Defence capabilities, in a co-ordinated and targeted ways and expressed the need to stop President Putin. The Northern European powers echoed one another. The PM of Denmark reinforced the continuing need to do more to secure the Arctic Region. And the Finish PM explained that he did not believe that Russia would now test the Resolve of Article 5, and that he did not see a direct threat from NATO currently. These were reflective points of view, provided from the wide range of diversity of the EU, but who’s leaders also aspire to a solidarity around policy on Russia and an agreement on a continued European Defence narrative. This does not contradict the existence of the Coalition of the willing, the role of Germany, France and the UK as a diplomatic and military force in Europe, which could be called upon if needed.

The US in the World – Day two

Marco Rubio US  Secretary of State gave an impassioned and extraordinary personal speech on the historical ties between European migrants and the United States. He described the historical relationship between the USA and Europe and the rise and fall of Communism in the 1980s. The two continents united about on agreement on what they were fighting for, that the East and West seemed to have joined one another, after the fall of an evil empire.  “The international rules based order would replace the national interest, a world without borders, where everyone would become a citizens of the world, but this was a foolish idea, we seemed to have entered an end of history, a delusion…, that the rules of commerce alone would replace nationhood, it has cost us dearly, all nations would become a liberal democracy, free from unfettered trade, systematically undercutting our industries, deindustrialising our nations, shipping jobs overseas, handing over our supply chains to adversaries, outsourcing our sovereignty as countries funded massive social welfare systems… unleashing mass migration”. Europe and America belong together, as unbreakable link exists between the old and the new world, bounded together by culture, Christian faith, heritage and sacrifice, sacrifice of world war, fighting side by side. We are part of one Western civilisation, bound by centuries by shared history, it is our preference to do this with Europe and America together.  We Americans sometimes come across as little direct, because we care and are profoundly connected… we want Europe to be strong, our futures are intertwined with yours, the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own, we are defending  a great civilisation. It was here in Europe that the seeds of liberty were found, it was this continent that produced the greats in Western culture”.

He went on to describe “Deindustrialisation was not inevitable, it was a conscious policy, which has stripped our nations of our wealth, of productive capacity and independence over a decade, it was a foolish transformation of the global economy, it has left us dependent to others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis.  Mass migration is seen in this context as not a little consequence of deindustrialisation; it is destabilising and it has a huge impact on societies. We now need to look to reindustrialise, not just claiming the industries of the past, but building creativity and ingenuity, to build a new western century, industrial automation, western supply chains not vulnerable to exploitation to other powers…Taking back of national boarders, it is a basic duty owed to our people”.  “We must not give up on the old order, but these must be reformed and rebuilt”. [24]

 He called on Europe to become more independent, for its own security, he said that  “We want allies who are proud of their heritage, which we share and that they are strong enough to defend it. The US do not want to be part of the West’s managed decline, together decline is a choice which we do not choose, we need allies who are strong, allies cannot be shackled or ashamed, sharing a noble civilisation. The US wants an alliance which is not frozen by fear of climate change, or war, or technology or compliancy. The only fear we have is not leaving the world healthier and wealthier for our children. An alliance where it’s power cannot be outsourced, our way of life is one amongst many, an alliance that we the West have inherited something unique and irreplaceable.  Amongst the headlines of an ‘end to the transatlantic era’, this is not our goal or wish, our home may be in the Atlantic Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe. [25]

He called upon “The new Transatlantic partnership,  a new Europe, but it needs to stand together”… “we live in a new era in geopolitics and it’s going to require all of us to re-examine what that looks like and what our role is going to be”.[26] He described the human context of America and Europe as necessary and one of deep-rooted connection, despite the need for America to protect its own interests in defence and economy, which will not always align with what Europe wants but what it perceives it may need going forward – economic prosperity in terms of jobs and a return to manufacturing goods, and to address imbalances in trade worldwide – irrespective of the US Supreme Court case, marking Trump’s tariffs as not legally sustainable in trade. It is likely that US tariffs will continue to be used as a ‘carrot and a stick’ to leverage some policy position or to sanction nations to bend to US policy needs.

In diplomacy and negotiations, the task is to recognise what the policy is and to act accordingly and to continue with dialogue and to build on diplomatic relationships. Some governments describe this process as the weaponisation of tariffs, especially in the global south. Not all critics of America will agree with his description of the world and message of reassurance and partnership, and relationships of intertwined histories and futures.  It may be unwelcome, to those allied more closely to Putin, questions about America’s role and increasing national actions to further American national  self-interest can be hurtful to other national interests, but the argument is, that this is done on our behalf, and that Western Europe is adjusting and stepping up. What can be taken away from this Conference and its diplomatic message, is that the USA wants more from Europe, more power and decisions to strength itself, but that must include some difficult tests.

Breaking Point: The International Order Between Reform and Destruction

Multilateralism and a call for Reform of the UN

Challenges to multilateralism are evident in number of cases presented at the UN. The US Amabassador Micheal Walts articulated moments where the US has intervened with its heavy agenda and where it claims success in recent conflicts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Venezuela and Iran, even Gaza through the creation of the Peace Council.  The case presented by the Council for an independent Gaza, one where Palestinians can live side by side with Isreal, is one of the most sensitive cases in the Middle East. The horrors that have taken place in the Gaza Strip and Isreal is one of the most difficult for defenders of humanitarian law, as the UN had no effective powers to intervene in the Israeli-Hamas conflict, but it does have the capacity to send Peace Keeping soldiers and to monitor the distribution of aid and security, it is not entirely toothless. Also 8,000 troops are being committed from Asia. Given the deeply destructive events that took place since 7 October, it appears that even the UN would not be welcome and is even suspicious in its intent, given Isreal’s accusation about the purpose of UNRWA in Gaza, the Peace Council now appears to be the only peace structure available to stabilise the situation.

Its creation is controversial for some in the Middle East and other nations who believe that the UN would be better placed to help Gazan’s in the time of crisis, it is the most experienced institution, with available resources and Peace Keeping Troops.  It is also controversial  as it does not have any Palestinian representatives from the Palestinian Authority (PA) on its Board, to help inform  peace arrangements going forward with Isreal.  There is agreement in the view amongst Western Allies that there can be no annexation of Gaza. Micheal Waltz articulated this during an open meeting at the European Security Conference, Breaking Point: The International Order Between Reform and Destruction between Pedro Arnulfo Sanches Suarez (Minister of State for Defence Rep Colombia), Prince Fisal bin Farhan Al Saud (Minister of Foreign Affairs Saudia Arabia), Micheal Waltz (Ambassador for the US to the UN) and Kaja Kallas (Vice-President, Foreign Affairs and Security for the EU Commission). Kaja Kallas was insightful to point out that the UN system was based on a Eurocentric liberal world order, and that the feature in the system that ‘Might is Right” has always existed in the world and that the system may not now be working for everyone. Prince Fisal also explained that amongst those that believe that the ‘system is broken’, “we are also the supporters of the old system”.[27] This was expressed elsewhere during meetings at the Conference, by other Diplomats and Heads of State from Africa and Latin America, with views that there is need for the stability that the system can provide in the Global South.

Saudi Arabia is also a member of the Board and PA representatives asked for the rights of Gazan’s to be addressed. Their request is to stabilise the situation first, but to allow the PA to be involved. Most anxious are nations in Arab states and those further away in Latin America and Africa who rely on the rules-based order to resolve problems through multilateralism. The Isreal-Gaza case is a test case in may respects.  It is also this stability rules in principle and values which keep Europe in peace, and China and more hostile countries to the West talking to one another. Without negotiation there can be no peace. Diplomats are highly dependent on the UN Charter, system and structure to function effectively, it governs the pathways in which they function and can rely upon. It is true that it must work effectively, but at what cost and to whom, and are human costs too high during a period of reform and de-funding?

Given the strength of feeling from global leaders that the old international order is over, key questions remain – What are the characteristics of the new order? Where is it going? How can it be shaped?

Views from this open meeting include that we are in a much more civilised world, than in centuries before, and that this is an optimistic starting point. The UN has a much more offensive protective force, an anti-gang suppression force, challenging criminal activity which cripple societies, such as narco-terrorism.  These are shared  national agendas at the UN.

Who is most vocal about reform of the UN?

Micheal Waltz also spoke at the Conference, he accused Maduro of Venezuela of state sponsored narco-terrorism which attacks the USA, his distinctive approach to foreign policy is held by the US  Government in that the views expressed are warning bells that something very radically different needed to happen, with US Leadership moving Maduro out of Venezuelans and other nations have welcomed this change. 

US funding for development aid has been cut dramatically, and the brutal truth is set out in this statement which states that reform was necessary; “the UN needed to be put on a diet, that it must return to its peace keeping and peace making functions, that the UN has agreed to a budget cut of 15% in December 2025, to 3,000 post cuts in its bureaucracy and military. The UN needs to be fit for purpose, and it must return to basics and core functions, 18% cuts in personnel over personnel cuts, with 25% peace keeping cuts. The UN cannot keep trying to be everything to all people”.[28]  “We are going to Reform the UN”. Calls to reform  of one of the most important international institutions is not new, and there is a diverse and often divergent view on the how and the need to do so. The agenda and appetite for reform have become louder, but how much the UN can legally diverge from it’s Charter in providing multilateral functions, and remain a symbol for international unity on law, justice and human rights during war time is unclear.  There is also the moral question about whether the right priorities are in place at the UN for it to function effectively, this narrative could be perceived as anti-multilateralism, where the poorest and most vulnerable lose.  At the same time, history has taught us that nations will seek to force some position in war time, especially if there is an escalation of conflict in the two Regions of Europe and the Middle East

Aid workers are already badly affected by war, often vulnerable to death, what safe role is left for them to act in this increasingly unsafe world. This perception raises questions about whether we are facing the beginning of a World War III crisis, is this our 1939? It can only become soo, if powerful nations seek further conflict causing Allies and Middle powers in Europe to be brought into a wider regional war, which nobody really wants, but the pandora’s box was opened after the Conference. leading to escalation into what appears to be a regional war in the Middle East.

World Leaders keep saying no to illegal acts, even during the most recent war activity in Iran. The UK and Spain both initially saw the attacks on Iran as illegal under international law, Spain has refused to support any military activity and Kier Stamer the UK PM took  time to agree the use of UK bases in the Middle East, on the legal agreement that this was for the purpose of defending some 100,000 and more British civilian lives in the Middle East. He has made it clear that Britain was not involved in the initial attacks and does not want to get involved in a protracted ‘illegal war’. There is also the reality that all nations need the rules-based order, including the USA or risk becoming a rogue state amongst an international system of sovereign nations. This is the reality between destruction, war and transition to reform of the old order. The questions arising is that this should be done without war, but is that the case in all situations? It certainly appears that diplomacy failed in this most recent situation with Iran.

The most powerful nations in history have helped to shape the multilateral order post 1945. The UK, France, Germany, Russia and China and the values of the  UN, so here lies a huge challenge before them. The powers of some of these nations have been in relative decline, European ties damaged by Brexit,  and a weakening in relationships, since 2016; whilst China, India and Brazil have grown in their reach and influence, they have also increased their economic power. Resetting the UK-EU relationship has been a major focus of the Labour Government, these relationships have improved diplomatically and are bringing policy alignments on key EU-UK interests such as security and economy. Middle Powers such as Britain have levers to pull and old relationships to call upon, they also have the right to refuse to get involved in conflicts, or poor agreements, not in their national interests. For the old system to work, everyone should be seeking peace through these moments of conflict. Questions about ‘the old system’, the international system, the order which supports the post-1945 euro-centric model of  Western existence has again brought into question the purpose of the UN and a call for structural reform from many quarters.

One observation commented upon during the  MS Conference Breaking Point Meeting, was that  Europe has had the luxury to say ‘that the change in order is not impactful on us’, but the war in Ukraine has brought that to the forefront. The reordering of priorities by states in war time is impacting the effective function of the UN. Calls for reform may be agenda heavy, but they are not without the reality that if great powers begin to reorder their peace-war dividends and subsequently priorities and funding of the UN, these may be valid observations that the UN is under tension to change and reprioritise also. Some clearly suggest that it is at Breaking Point and that we have reached a point of an International Order that is between reform and potential its own destruction. A prophetic final point is not that the UN cannot survive, but that there is a need to refocus the organisation.

Building on Momentum in the Middle East (Gaza and Isreal)

Initially controversial, does the Board or Peace undermine the UN? It appears to not do that nor challenge it directly. But appears to be helping to inform the process to stabilise the situation at the end of the Hamas-Israeli conflict. It remains incredibly sensitive and each act of diplomacy counts. The Saudi French proposal, the 20-point plan, sits with the Board of Peace and can complement one another. Helga Maria Schmid  Ambassador for Global Affairs, the Federal Republic for Germany, President for the EU Institute for Peace.  discussed the publication of the Arab Barometer Survey of Palestinians and Israelis, concluding that most people from these communities favour a two-state solution. Prince Fisal discussed the reality that this gives hope that both Palestinians and Israelis must live side by side, to have peace and a future. Prince Fisal bin Farhan, Al Saud, a member of the Board of Peace, stated that “First there must be stabilisation in Gaza and then to begin the process of rebuilding”. A real long-lasting peace must also meet the final goal with the Oslo Agreement, but breaking with the method of Oslo, where recognition of the Palestinian people could be given, abandoning veto if parties do not attend meetings.[29]

Sigrid Kaag, Gaza Executive Board, Co-Chair Board of Directors, UN Foundations, recommended that the second phase of the peace plan should be implemented immediately. The Gaza Board must meet. Grounded in a UN Security Council Resolution gives it legitimacy, recalling all other resolutions calling on resolutions on humanitarian law, and international law. “Recognition is a right, not a carrot”, which requires both empathy from and recovery from trauma by people on both sides. She stated that Phase Two must be implanted immediately, which involves the withdrawal of the Israeli army and disarming Hamas, at the same time, they cannot wait any longer to live side by side. It requires political will and conviction, to call out friends and secure implementation”.[30] There is a moral imperative to move from words to actions. It is needed for Israelis and Gazans for a state that is worth living in”. [31]Questions are likely to be raised about illegal settlements by Isreal in the West Bank. There is a glimmer of hope that Phase Two can be implemented, land swaps can be discussed, as part of that process.

The Minster for Foreign Affairs of Syria stated that the new Syrian government had accepted responsibility for the past and will not hid behind justification. That they are moving forward, by meeting with Secretary of Marco Rubio, this gives a direction of where Syrian Affairs are going, they want institutions that encompass diversity, challenged by reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure and 10,000s of refugees, in discussions with neighbours, Syria needs reconstruction of institutions of ‘basic needs’, and the government is aware of the difficulties today. Schmid pointed out that trust in the new Syrian Government remains low in parts of the Arab world. Prince Fisal pointed out that Syria must reform Syria, a new investment package was provided by the private sector from Saudi companies, there is confidence that as the government continues to progress change, the respectful of rights of the Kurd observed, and with a friendly business environment and necessary rule of law, ensuring corruption does not come into play, Syria could be successful and have a lot of potential. He reiterated, but “As long as they maintain this momentum”.[32] Norway has decided to release sanctions early on, because of this early momentum. Espen Barth Eide, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway asked those present not to punish those for a regime which had now gone. “The government in Syria appears to be able to unify people, without sectarianism, building a new state”.[33]

Mushrooming: Tackling Growing Nuclear Proliferation Risks

None-proliferation of nuclear weapons was listed amongst the agenda items at the start of the week, the NPT the nuclear Proliferation Treaty (1970) which holds  5 nuclear powers to account and provides for a normalised culture amongst none-nuclear states about which nations hold nuclear weapons, and how that is regulated. The theme of the MS Conference is ‘under destruction’, the view is that there is an evident erosion of the liberal order, and that this also impacts the nuclear order, the nuclear proliferation regime – none-proliferation of weapons and the internationally  binding NPT agreements, which have been resilient and resistant, within  successful norms of behaviours and institutions. Acquiring more state approval and agreement since the 1960s in the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons, the outcome has been the  prevention of more states acquiring nuclear weapons. There are now new risks and threats which increase none-proliferation risks. Russia has come close to using nuclear weapons in it’s threats and war language since the 1950/60s. Countries with nuclear weapons may now start thinking differently about these weapons, as these threats escalated since the war in Ukraine.

Open meetings at the MS Conference were attended by the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Academics from the Johne Kennedy, Harvard School of Government and the Director of  the Belfor Centre for Science and International Affairs, and academics from Spogli Institute for International Studies. The IAEA Director described some limitation to the NPT in war time, it’s resilience has worked in a predictable world, we are now experiencing points of vulnerability not seen since before the 1980s, concerns arising in the Global South, that countries which had been in alignment with the NPT, from the 1970s, are starting to say that they should revisit their approach to nuclear weapons and that NPT regime may not be in their national interest and this is development is now technically possible – this includes some countries in the Global South, and in Asia. Some instruments may be unravelling, and it is important to face the risk of loosing the old regime. There is of course risk of crisis of confidence in the system, if the NPT is brought into question.

With the NPT, comes greater responsibility, the five nuclear countries could present their views to countries, outline costs and capacity and the rising risk of uncertainty. The extended nuclear deterrence could remain within the hands of the five countries for the purpose of global deterrence. A UK-French P5 could provide an alternative extended nuclear deterrence, but some Academics like Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, at John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University disagrees. “The risk are too profound”, he stated. The current regime is an extraordinary achievement. Without the existing system we would experience nuclear anarchy. (Mind the Deterrence Gap an Assessment of Europe’s nuclear options, has been published by the Munich Security Conference – raising some of these issues).

It is summarised by the UK Government below:

“Pillar I: nuclear disarmament[34]

The Treaty obliges all States, which have signed and ratified it, to pursue negotiations in good faith on disarmament measures. It does not establish any timetable for nuclear disarmament.

Pillar II: non-proliferation

This means making sure that States that do not have nuclear weapons do not acquire them. The NPT establishes a safeguards system through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The system ensures that Non-Nuclear Weapon States are complying with the Treaty. The 5 NWS, including the UK, have also agreed voluntary safeguards agreements to further strengthen the system.

Pillar III: peaceful uses of nuclear technology

This promotes cooperation between States to share the benefits of peaceful uses of nuclear technology, whilst making sure the technology cannot be used for weapons.

The Treaty also establishes a process to review the Treaty every 5 years, called a Review Conference or ‘RevCon’.” By 2025 183 none-nuclear countries had signed up to the treaty.”[35]

It is regularly reviewed and it has been in a regular review preparatory cycle until 2026 on its 11th Review. The New Start Deal  however, between the US-Russia of 1991 which limited war heads under 6,000 and revived in 2010 have since expired on 5 February 2026. This leaves a gapping whole in nuclear weapons regulations and inspections triggers, sparking fears of a potential nuclear arms race between the two nations, until the NPT Conference which is to be hosted at the UN in April 2026, it is unclear what further discussion will be had.

Confidence in the existing system must remain high, especially in times of uncertainty and where tensions are high between nuclear powers such as the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. There must be confidence in the system, especially in times of war and uncertainty. Not all countries are signatories to the NPT, and others have not ratified the Treaty. The work towards disarmament, therefore None-Proliferation of nuclear weapons  through the 2017 Treaty is somewhat challenged if any of these nations test or develop new weapons, challenging the Comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty of 1996. It has been a largely successful system with nuclear weapons on the decline. The system has watched countries like India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons.

Inspections by the IAEA in Iran after a period of enrichment were abandoned after Iran legislated in 2025 to prevent inspection, then there was little possibility of entering to inspect sites after the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in 2025, Iranian restrictions had been in place since 2018. Fears were raised that Israeli strikes would accelerate their production of nuclear weapons.[36] Whether they have weapons of nuclear proportions has yet to be verified  by international inspectors.[37] (Chatham House)  The situation in March of the war in Iran have sparked comparisons about the Iraq war 2003 and more recent brief invasion and capture of President Maduro of Venezuela in 2025. Overthrowing the regime has not happened and those sites and associated infrastructures, have become the focal purpose for further strikes on Iran by the USA-Isreal joint operation.

The New Start Treaty

The New Start Treaty (2021) is very different to the NPT.  The Treaty which prevents nuclear proliferation and created an agreement between the USA and Russia since 1994 on the number of weapons that they can each hold.  This trend to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles was at its peak in the 1980s and the Cold War. NTI state these were reduced weapons at the global level from about 70,000 to 12,000 today, the START agreement was regularly renewed, but The Treaty would has gone out of force on 5 February 2026 and within the five-year term. New Start limited the US and Russia each to 1,550  deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, and no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy  bombers.[38]

The New Start Treaty included agreements on:

Short notice onsite inspections at nuclear bases for both countries.

• Regular data exchanges – notifications on the number and status of each sides treaty accountable systems.
• To share new Treaty Accountable Systems
• The obligation not to interfere with the other’s technical means and monitoring compliance.
• To establish the Bilateral Consultative Commission, (BCC) for compliance and implementation purposes it would be required to meet a least twice a year.

Covid-19 caused both nations to halt inspections and BCC meetings, in the second half of 2022. Russia however, had stepped back from the Treaty in 2023 after the US decision to back Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine war. Since then, the US has tried to restart discussion on a New Start Treaty. But Russia sites Wester aggression and other hostile actions, which now make Russia non-compliant, the USA has deemed Russia’s suspension of  BCC in breach of the law since 2022. In response, the USA has implemented counter measures not to share data with Russia and prevented Russia’s ability to undertake on-site inspections of US sites.  The concern is how quickly  Russian can load nuclear war heads to weapons now, and how more dangerous the situation may be. President Trump argued more recently that New Start was a badly negotiated Treaty, (A previous administration President Obama Treaty). There were discussions more recently about new testing for US weapons, but this may be the foundations for a new negotiation within and outside nuclear none-proliferation institutions.

President Trump has publicly called for China to be included in a new Agreement going forward, as China has expanded its power and nuclear weapons programme. Great Powers in this act of diplomacy need to get together to prevent a catastrophe. Both the BBC and the New York Times have provided coverage of the gesture, on 8 January 2026, also reported by NTI online, “ I actually feel strongly that if we are going to do it, I think China should be a member of the extension, China should be part of the agreement”. “I have spoken to President Xi about it”, “and I think he’d be a willing participant”.[39]

In any event given the expiration of New Start, negotiations must be encouraged after discussion in Abu Dhabi, with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian counterparts over negotiations on Ukraine in February 2026. Any New START agreement would reflect the President’s Trumps commitment to prevent nuclear expansion beyond a dangerous and recognised limit. New Start may be the foundations of a new Treaty, if China are also to come on board.  Whether such a tripartite treaty can be negotiated is untested.  A US-Russia Treaty may be more comfortable, but China is also rising as a nuclear power and is considered by IR experts one of the great powers. Russia has over 4,000 nuclear war heads which are deployable, the US about 3,700 and China 600, expecting to reach 1,000.

The monitoring and inspections of weapons sites in all countries under a new treaty would be a priority for nonnuclear proliferation institutions, this is not however part of the negotiations between the states –  at this stage- and how the system would work is yet to be described in any detail. The risks on a no New Start Deal is an arms race, with no handshake agreements on how to limit the numbers of weapons. Alternatively, all  countries involved in a bi or tri-partite agreement could agree to reduce their nuclear weapons numbers to 1,550 as stated in the first agreements.

Russia has warned Europe that it will not rule out the use of unconventional weapons in response to NATO. Deescalation of threats is increasingly important, as the war in Ukraine continues. The Doomsday Clock discussions, although not directly associated with nuclear policy, have brought into sharp focus the realities of an 85 seconds to midnight scenario, with environmental disasters we are ever closer and the threat of nuclear war, brings us all much closer to a reality which is very uncomfortable. Some argue that the  proposed Golden Dome nuclear deterrence by the USA, is unlikely to be effective as Russia has the capacity to pierce the system.

China in the World 14 February 2026, European Security Conference Munich

Wang Yi Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of China, Commission of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, spoke at the conference with full Chinese diplomatic narrative which befits a strong power in international relations. He stated that “humanity is at a crossroads…that there was work towards a more just and equitable system, that the ship of history must best set on the right course, and to reform the UN”. “That the UN was a peace endeavour, after World War II, it is not perfect, but remains the most natural institution, a sacred vote to all countries, without it many countries leave the multilateral factors [system], which allows for its surveillance”. “Reforming Global Governance requires the commitment of all members, cooperation, of all into international institutions.   The World is a diverse space, cultures and depends, but some countries do not engage and behave without unity”.  On Ukraine the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy, “parties need to take the opportunity to discuss a longstanding peace”, one Gaza “it takes effort to implement a two-state solution, it is a responsibility of the [inter]national community”.[40]

Questions continue to be raised as to how China can contribute to convince Russia to end the [Ukraine] War and to withdraw?  The response of this most senior diplomat was that “China had sent its message, that we need to see a cessation of war and [turn] to dialogue, if we cannot keep dialogue going peace cannot be achieved. He stated that “this is the common goal of the international community, including China”.[41] It is important when reading these statements to remember that China  is one of the great founding powers of the UN. It holds a veto at the Security Council and that in International Relations studies, China matters. Ignoring China in international relations risks misunderstanding the international system outside of Western European identity and that of the West. It is a super economic power which is spreading commerce around the world. In Latin America, the area around the Suez Canal for instance demonstrates some of its economic power and influence; known elsewhere around the World in the Indo-Chinese areas. Historically it is also an Imperial power, and has had significant cultural influence across the world, evident in commerce and technology, even in global diplomacy. It is a permanent member of the Security Council, the current proposed reforms are unlikely to change the five permanent members of the Council, which includes China. 

Germany in Europe and the World

European Security in Europe cannot ignore the role of Germany, It is a large country and a historic power in Europe from before the time of Prussia, with close boundaries with Poland its geopolitics are closer to Easter European countries, former countries of the USSR, threatened by Russia today. With a history of large-scale manufacturing, technological development and industrialisation. Friedrich Merz Federal Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany spoke to address questions about its role in Europe and the World, he identifies China as a power which wants to shape the international order and to dominate economically. That the European order appears broken, but there is a desire for leadership in a democratic world. He reflected on great power politics, spheres of influence, deference and describes supply chains as becoming politicised. The USA is adapting to the fast pace of change, in their national security strategy, this also accelerates the pace of change, Europe is also experiencing this change. 

Germany and European powers accept the changes, “but we can shape it”, “if we step up with confidence, seize new opportunities, and if we get it right, we can get it right in this changing time”. “German priorities arise from our history and geography and our priority freedom, our economic power feeds this freedom, it is in our interests”. [42]“German foreign policy, he said, has been of normative surplice, demanding, scolding but lacked the means to solve the problems. Let’s be honest about our own possibilities”.[43] Germany’ military and economic and technological potential is huge, but, “it has not been tapped for a very long time”. Friedrich Merz discussed German power in the world, its European dimensions, “German inactivity is more fearful restructuring of the world order is happening more rapidly and Europe is also adapting”. [44]

Too little state power can lead nations to different outcomes, Merz described a need for power, and  we cannot ignore the partnership with the US and concerns, but we cannot ignore European realities. Germany, he said was developing its own agenda, reflecting inward.  “Big power politics in Europe is not an option in Europe, but not hegemonic power. We will likely seek power through our partners; never again will we go it alone. We are strengthening ourselves, reducing vulnerabilities in defence, credible deterrence”.[45] “German has changed its constitution to invest in defence and will support Ukraine to stand up to Russia in military, and economic terms. Working with technology companies and with the Ukraine, investing also on reforms of our military. “ First Euro fighters have been earmarked. It will create an army which will stand firm when it needs to”. “Developing resilience defence chains, and infrastructure, strengthening our security services as well”. [46]

Strengthening Europe is a key German priority to enhance our competitiveness, encourage investment and creativity to open a new sense of agency. Developing a road map for a strong sovereign Europe. Committed to provide armed assistance, to provide assistance to Europe in case of an armed attack, within the Alliance.  Discussing with President Macron of France a new European nuclear deterrence, embedded within NATO without zones of difference in European Security, and Defence industry, standardisation, scaling and simplification of defence systems. A Joint external positioning, a strong trade policy, provisionally applied. Not to replace NATO but a strong pillar  within NATO. That gains us new partners a strong trade policy, such as MERCOSUR taken by the EU Commission. And must work towards a strong Sovereign  Europe.

Supporting the World Health Organization and Environmentally Sustainable Agreements, we are stronger together and trust is important to ensure the foundations of NATO continue. Strategists at the Pentagon are aware  of this. “The USA is our friend and for three generations NATO has forged our Alliance, the USA will not be powerful enough to go it alone”. The German Chancellor stated “that it is also in Europe’s and the USA’s competitive advantage to do so. Most analysts would agree that the USA cannot do this alone in any system of recognition. Networks of partnerships are key but not sufficient, we need as system of values”. [47]

Post-Conference Analysis on Germany

The UK is described as being in a post-industrialised world providing a heavy service sector driven economy, which accounts for about 82%  of the UK GDP. To some observers, it may even suffer from ‘deindustrialisation policies’, but it is no different to any other Western nation, that is trying to balance environmental policies, with the demands of the global economy and shifting industrial supply chains. Not all liberal democracies agree with the observation to the same degree, on the term.  Larger countries like Germany have a more diverse economic base making it the 3^rd Largest European Economy and 3^rd largest global exporter in the more recent decade, with about 70% of GDP driven by Service Sector provision, and exports vehicles and mechanical products, pharmaceuticals, but in 2024 it experienced some decline as China absorbed automobile manufacturing and green technologies, expecting to manufacture them at a lower cost. 

There is every reason for Germany to continue having the potential to grow its economy, despite unfair competition from China, which regularly undercuts production costs of technology around the world. Unless it finds the capacity to resist and protect its manufacturing consumer markets at home and abroad, and to continue producing German goods, it is likely that its economy will stagnate in 2025-26. This poses huge problems for German policy makers, as Germany has absorbed successfully high levels of immigration, creating a pull on highly paid skilled jobs, which can be affected by a decline in production in manufacturing and elsewhere. The German Chancellor described the tensions in geopolitics and ‘destruction of the rules-based order’ in wars –  the order of law challenged by Russian aggression daily. This he highlighted was not just a tension between Great Powers, but has the potential to impact everyone, where democratic leaders are challenged to act now to rapidly changing situations, where EU policy must keep up to speed with global politics and where tipping points can impact supply chains altering the way economies respond to change. Germany will preserve its interests.

What we know about the German Economy and reasons to be optimistic

World Bank Data in 2025 shows Germany as having 3.7% of unemployment and stable inflation of 2.3%. Deutsche Bank Research in June 2025 also highlight the need to be aware of the damage that a war an increasing oil price could have on the German Economy. Looking forward, shocks in the economy would impact the 2% inflation goal, which could rise above the current rate, clarity around the impact of decarbonization and external shocks seem to create some uncertainty. Concerns about the rise in consumer price index is a trend across the Eurozone countries.  Deutsche Bank Research describe this as an explosion in energy prices (electricity, oil, fuel), but historic inflation shocks shortly after World War II, reflect a similar crisis. The global oil crisis, German Unification and the covid-19 pandemic, sees increasing capacity for Germany to better manage increasing costs over time.[48] It has the historic and institutional experience to manage economic difficulty.

Prior to the pandemic it has managed to ensure a relatively low consumer price index floating well below 2% for almost 20 years. Germany’s recovery after the pandemic has been robust and the Bank reports that only 7% of German companies report problems with sources necessary materials for their production. But like the UK which has significantly higher inflation, it is the cost to the consumer the CIP of goods like food and energy which are of most concern as the war in Ukraine continues. In the Summer of 2025, the Deutsch Bank in Germany continues to look for a larger export market in China and has the opportunity in the Global South such as India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam and Thailand. If it is able to open those markets in 2026, that is an opportunity for growth which the German Chancellor is likely to want to pursue. The narrative around the European Security Conference was therefore very important and it was significant that Heads of States from Latin America and the USA, and Africa attended. Germany wishes to pursue a deal through MERCOSUR and India and to protect itself from unfair trade practises.[49]

In October 2025, Deutsch Bank recognised its trade deficit with China it must manage its trade asymmetry with China and dependencies. It has been buying vehicles from China, and it may begin to experience what is described as a ‘China Shock’ on it’s industries as it imports more from China. With a trade deficit with China likely to widen, but at what pace, is unpredicted, it has developed a three-pillar strategy to implement in response to potential shock to the German Economy and it has its strengths in pharma and auto industries.[50] The German government unveiled a large fiscal spending programme in December 2025, which it will want to deliver, following some relaxation in debt to GDP and investment in defence spending, it is unlikely to be over tested and in February the Bank anticipated significant recovery in 2026, with good consumer spending and robust supply chains. Structural changes in the economy, changes in demographics, and commitments to public spending can impact the economy.

 Conclusion

There have been gradual and now dramatic shifts in power, as the global economy has been reshaped by competition winners and losers in global technology trade, petroleum and oil, automative trade, chemical and pharmaceutical industries and foods, or agricultural produce.  Economy is bound to security, migration, education, skilling and retention and technology, resources and capacity produce resilience to improve economic performance. External shocks such as wars, environmental problems (floods, higher temperatures, land degradation, and exploitation of rare minerals), impact the local environment and people, jobs and skills and employment retention. This in  turn impacts internal private investment for start up companies to come forward and then damages foreign investment. DAVOS at the World Economic Forum in January 2026, highlighted this delicate balance, the need for alternative energy sources to maintain environmental commitments to improve the lives of people in the Global South also has some aberrance on European Security; as we see floods and environmental impact across Europe and countries like the UK, Spain, Portugal and Australia with dramatic flooding each year damaging the homes of thousands of people.

Wars in the Middle East are dangerous as they have the capacity to spill over quickly, as we have seen this year and the last, the most significant tipping points had been boiling over a year ago, with the war in Gaza and tensions with Iran and Syria escalating and escalating, ahead of further bigger reprisals. Warnings have been followed by actions in the Middle East.  These moments have passed, but not to those people living in the Middle East  who are threated daily, who have lost civilians and infrastructure – damage costing economies huge amounts of dollars and time to repair and reestablish. The infrastructure lost in the war in Iran can take five years to repair, the pipeline off  the existing island between Qatar and Iran has lost two of its 14 pipelines. Saudi Arabia is looking to protect those that it owns. Isreal, Gaza in particular, Iran and the people suppressed within countries are also suffering; in Yemen, attacked by allies of Isreal have little hope of recovering. These are the consequences of war. The strong driver for change are both the lives of those lost, but also a future which must be protected.

Europe too is affected by global shifts. Geopolitically these are not European, but any conflict in medium sized sates can and does impact the global economy. Some countries may look to rationing, the IEA has put out advice on how to manage a future fuel crisis for domestic consumption of fuel. We are closer to those tipping conflicts, which can lead to World Wars, due to the actions and personalities of world leaders. What decisive actions can be put in place is being worked out to descale world conflict, European Security commitments are one commitment and decisive resolution, which unifies Europe and creates space for negotiations, alliances and investments into physical defence. Hungary and Turkey  may be examples where European Security shifts and commitments are less likely to easily unify opinion.

Yesterday, The UK did, not declared war, it does not see the Middle East conflicts in its interest and has like other European nations, Spain refused to get involved in the dialogue and active efforts of war in the Middle East. European Security statements have been robust both at DAVOS in January and the European Security Conference in February, the stronger powers in Europe wish to see an end to the conflict in Ukraine through diplomacy, but they are prepared to fight for the safety and sovereignty of their nations and unifying values. These were statements made by the President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who has reiterated the commitment to doing so, united under the EU and NATO, it also now has an oil and energy crisis looming. Calls to reform NATO for the purpose of European Security have been raised outside of the European Security Conference, in response to DAVOS 2026 and scaling international conflict. One UK report by CIVITAS suggests that the UK should be transitioning to war preparedness, and Reform of NATO may help countries achieve that in a better, collective way in Europe without leaning on the US for support. Although mentioned at the UK Parliamentary Liaison Committee on 23 March 2026, this is not something the Prime Minister was prepared to discuss in any detail but he outlined instead the steps and policy commitments to invest in UK Defence.

Bibliography

List of podcasts, recordings, news and media summaries and relevant websites.

Recordings from the Munich Security Conference 2026

From February 13 to 15, 2026, the 62nd Munich Security Conference was the centre of international diplomacy. On this page, you can find the links to the mentioned sessions within this paper – main‑program sessions of MSC 2026.

Recordings from the Munich European Security Conference (links provided).

Opening and Welcome Remarks – Munich Security Conference

Germany in Europe and the World – Munich Security Conference

Breaking Point: The International Order Between Reform and Destruction – Munich Security Conference

Japan in the World – Munich Security Conference

China in the World – Munich Security Conference

Tariff-fying Times: Managing the Weaponization of Trade – Munich Security Conference

France in Europe and the World – Munich Security Conference (Coalition of the Willing)

Life Under Destruction: Building-Blocks for a New Gaza – Munich Security Conference

Playing With Fire: The Need for Decisive Climate Action – Munich Security Conference

Mushrooming: Tackling Growing Nuclear-Proliferation Risks – Munich Security Conference

Spotlight on the State of Russia – Munich Security Conference

Principled and Pragmatic: Wielding Power in a World in Disarray – Munich Security Conference

Organisation Research Publications

Understanding the Uks transitions to warfighting readiness Bernard Jenkins MP, Derek Twigg MP.. Understanding the UKâ•Žs Transition to Warfighting Readiness.pdf CIVITAS, January 2026.

Parliament Liaison Committee Hearing with the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer MP Parliamentlive.tv – Liaison Committee (Commons) 23 March 2026.

The Guardian newspaper

Iran says agreement with US ‘within reach’ as nuclear talks begin in Geneva – Middle East live

UK Government

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – GOV.UK

BBC News online: New Start: US-Russia nuclear weapons treaty due to expire raising fears of arms race

BBC News online: Foreign secretary denounces ‘reckless Iran threats’ after missiles fired at Diego Garcia – BBC News

BBC News: Trump’s nuclear arms control push with Russia hinges on China – BBC News

Chatham House

The IAEA and Iran reached an agreement on inspections – but looming sanctions mean it’s already in trouble | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

IAEA

Nuclear Energy Summit 2026

IAEA Board Adopts Landmark Resolution on Iran PMD Case 2015

IEA

IEA – International Energy Agency

Middle East – Countries & Regions – IEA (Data)

Iran – Countries & Regions – IEA (Data)

The Middle East and Global Energy Markets – Topics – IEA March 2026.

Oil Market Report – March 2026 – Analysis – IEA

New IEA report highlights options to ease oil price pressures on consumers in response to Middle East supply disruptions – News – IEA historic oil price rises and war in the Middle East.

NTI

NTI | Advancing Global Nuclear and Biological Security

World Bank

Germany | Data

Deutsche Bank Research

Inflation in Germany: Are we facing a new wave of rising prices? – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research oil concern prices

In search of new export markets – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research In search of export markets

Dealing with a potential “China shock“ – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research Trae deficit with China

[Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly led arms control negotiations with Russia during talks in Abu Dhabi on the Ukraine war].

---

[1] France in Europe in the World, President Macron France in Europe and the World – Munich Security Conference, Notes from the European Security Conference, Munich,13 February 2026.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Richard Spencer, The Times, Iran vows to ‘set fire to souls’ of American soldiers if US puts boots on ground, March 29, 2026.” Iran vows to ‘set fire to souls’ of American soldiers if US puts boots on the ground. With a week to go. President Trump’s deadline to strike a deal expires, both sides are preparing for a ground confrontation.”

[6] International Energy Agency article, Oil Market Report – March 2026 – Analysis – IEA, March 2026.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] International Energy Agency article, Oil Market Report – March 2026 – Analysis – IEA, March 2026. The Middle East and Global Energy Markets – Topics – IEA

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Golders Green: Arson attack on Jewish charity ambulances being investigated by counter-terror police – BBC News 23 March 2026.

[13] Coverage by the BBC online, Fire at Texas oil refinery creates huge smoke plume – BBC News 24 March 2026. Large blast at Valero oil refinery in Texas sends smoke, flames into the air – CBS News.

[14] Britain says Cyprus base will not be part of UK-US self-defence deal, Reuters, 21 March 2026.

[15]BBC News  Are US-Iran peace talks really taking place? – BBC News and Oil prices volatile as Trump talks up Iran negotiations 25 March 2026.

[16] William Christou, Oil prices volatile as Trump talks up Iran negotiations The Guardian 23 March 2026,

[17] AP News online, Bridget  Brown Iran rejects US ceasefire proposal to end war | AP News 26 March 2026.

[18] President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, quotes from notes of her speeches at the Munich Security Conference 14 February 2026, Principled and Pragmatic: Wielding Power in a World in Disarray. With PM of the UK Sir Kier Starmer MP. Recordings link Principled and Pragmatic: Wielding Power in a World in Disarray – Munich Security Conference

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid. Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams from recording from the UK PM Sir Kier Starmer MP Speech at the Munich Security Conference 14 February 2026, Principled and Pragmatic: Wielding Power in a World in Disarray. With PM of the UK Sir Kier Starmer MP. Recordings link Principled and Pragmatic: Wielding Power in a World in Disarray – Munich Security Conference

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Quotes from Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams from recordings of speech of  Marco Rubio Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, for the USA, at  the European Security Conference The U.S. in the World – Munich Security Conference, 14 February 2026.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Notes by Rocio Ferro- Adams  from an open meeting Breaking point, the international order between reform and destruction. 13 February 2026, Breaking Point: The International Order Between Reform and Destruction – Munich Security Conference. The central message is that the old international order is over and that it will be reformed. Canada described it as a rapture, a new era of geopolitics.

[28] Quotes from notes made by Rocio Ferro- Adams  from recordings from an open meeting with Michael Waltz US Ambassador to the UN. Breaking point, the international order between reform and destruction. 13 February 2026, Breaking Point: The International Order Between Reform and Destruction – Munich Security Conference,

[29] Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams from the open meeting with Prince Fisal bin Farhan al Saud, and Building on Momentum in the Middle East: From Promise to Progress? – Munich Security Conference 14 February.

[30] Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams from comments made by Sigrid Kaag, Gaza Executive Board Member on 14 February at Building on Momentum in the Middle East: From Promise to Progress? – Munich Security Conference.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Notes from the open meeting. Ibid.

[33] Notes from open meeting and comments by Prince Fisal bin Farhan al Saud , Foreign Affairs Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[34] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – GOV.UK, link to UK Government website.

[35] NTI | Advancing Global Nuclear and Biological Security, views on nuclear proliferation by NTI.

[36] Nuclear Energy Summit 2026, Summary. IAEA Board Adopts Landmark Resolution on Iran PMD Case Decisions on Adopts IAEA adopts Landmark Resolution on Iran PMD Case.

[37] The IAEA and Iran reached an agreement on inspections – but looming sanctions mean it’s already in trouble | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

[38] Ibid.

[39] BBC News online: New Start: US-Russia nuclear weapons treaty due to expire raising fears of arms race, BBC News online: Foreign secretary denounces ‘reckless Iran threats’ after missiles fired at Diego Garcia – BBC News, BBC News: Trump’s nuclear arms control push with Russia hinges on China – BBC News

[40] Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams, from recordings from the MS Conference. China in the World – Munich Security Conference

[41] Ibid.

[42] Notes by Rocio Ferro-Adams, from recording from the Conference, Germany in Europe and the World – Munich Security Conference.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid. You can listen to recordings here on this link. Germany in Europe and the World – Munich Security Conference.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] World Bank online publication: Germany | Data link. Inflation in Germany: Are we facing a new wave of rising prices? – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research oil concern prices

[49] In search of new export markets – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research In search of export markets.

[50]Dealing with a potential “China shock“ – Deutsche Bank Research – Deutsche Bank Research A Trade deficit with China.