For decades, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has served as the premier venue for transatlantic leaders to reaffirm their shared commitment to collective security. It has been a forum where American presidents and European policymakers could, even in times of political turbulence, restate the enduring strength of NATO and the transatlantic alliance.
This year, however, the tone is different.
New Global Order: Is This the Beginning of the End for NATO?
The 2025 MSC is taking place at a moment of profound geopolitical transition, where the old certainties of the post-Cold War order are eroding.
The North Atlantic security framework, long anchored in U.S. leadership and European dependence on American military power, is coming under mounting strain—perhaps fatally. Two key forces are accelerating this transformation.
The first is the geopolitical shift to multipolarity, where American hegemony is no longer unchallenged and Europe must navigate a world in which power is more dispersed and contested. The second is the rise (or return) of the “sovereigntist” strategic vision – which I will call “sovereigntism” – a strategic vision that has taken hold in the United States, particularly under the Trump administration, and is mirrored in the growing strength of right-wing nationalist movements in Europe.
These forces are converging to unravel the foundations of NATO and the broader North Atlantic security order. At Munich 2025, the divisions between Washington and its European allies are no longer just points of diplomatic friction; they are signs of a deeper structural transformation that may render the alliance itself obsolete.
The Transition to Multipolarity: The Erosion of U.S. Strategic Primacy
For most of its history, NATO existed within the framework of an American-led international order. First as a Cold War bulwark against Soviet power, and later as a tool of U.S. global primacy in the unipolar era, the alliance was sustained by Washington’s belief that European security was central to American interests. That assumption is now being called into question.
The shift to a multipolar world is undeniable. The rise of China as a global power, Russia’s persistent military assertiveness, and the growing influence of middle powers like India, Turkey, and Brazil mean that the strategic playing field is no longer dominated by the United States. Washington is increasingly preoccupied with China, economic competition, and domestic political priorities, leaving Europe with the realization that the transatlantic security framework is no longer America’s primary concern.
At Munich 2025, this shift is palpable. European leaders have arrived with the expectation that the United States will reaffirm its NATO commitments, yet the American delegation is making it clear that the era of unconditional security guarantees is over. The U.S. is still engaged in European security, but not as NATO’s unquestioned leader. Instead, it is acting more selectively, pursuing strategic priorities based on national interests rather than alliance obligations.
This change is not merely a product of the Trump administration’s policies—it reflects a deeper structural reality. As the United States adjusts to a more competitive international system, its willingness to subsidize European security is diminishing. The question that haunts this year’s MSC is whether Europe is prepared for a future in which American military leadership in NATO is no longer guaranteed.
Sovereigntism and the Transformation of U.S. Strategy
The geopolitical shift to multipolarity is compounded by a political transformation within the United States itself: the rise of sovereigntism as the dominant American strategic vision.
Unlike traditional isolationism, which advocates for retreat from global affairs, sovereigntism does not reject international engagement but insists that every aspect of U.S. foreign policy must be explicitly transactional, serving immediate American interests rather than abstract commitments to allies or institutions. This vision treats alliances like NATO not as permanent fixtures of global security but as tools to be wielded—and, if necessary, discarded—depending on the perceived costs and benefits.
Under Trump, sovereigntism has become the defining approach to U.S. grand strategy. At Munich 2025, the consequences are clear. American officials are no longer discussing NATO in terms of shared responsibility or collective security; instead, they are making stark demands. If European countries do not meet their defense spending obligations and prove their strategic value, the U.S. will scale back its commitments—or, potentially, exit the alliance altogether.
This approach is consistent with other recent moves by the Trump administration, which has sought to leverage American military and economic power in purely transactional terms. From exploring the strategic acquisition of Greenland to using economic pressure against Panama for geopolitical advantage, the administration has demonstrated that it does not see U.S. global engagement as a matter of long-term strategic stability, but as a series of deals to be made on a case-by-case basis.
For NATO, this represents an existential challenge. If Washington no longer sees the alliance as a cornerstone of U.S. security but rather as a burden unless it produces immediate benefits, then NATO’s long-term viability is in serious doubt. The message at Munich is clear: unless European states dramatically increase their military investments and prove their strategic utility, they cannot assume that NATO as it currently exists will survive.
The Rise of Right-Wing Nationalism in Europe: A Parallel Shift
While the shift toward sovereigntism in the U.S. is reshaping transatlantic relations from one side, a parallel transformation is unfolding within Europe itself. Right-wing nationalist movements are gaining ground across the continent, and many of them share the Trump administration’s skepticism of NATO and transatlantic cooperation.
Across key European states, political parties that were once marginal now wield real influence. In France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, nationalist movements are challenging the very premise of European integration and questioning the necessity of traditional alliances. Many of these parties reject the idea that European security should be tied to NATO, preferring a more fragmented, nation-state-based approach to defense.
At Munich 2025, this shift is being felt in conversations among European leaders. While some still advocate for reinforcing NATO and strengthening ties with the U.S., others are beginning to align with the sovereigntist view—arguing that European states should prioritize their own national interests over collective security arrangements.
This internal division weakens Europe’s ability to respond to the geopolitical changes reshaping the transatlantic order. If Europe is itself divided on the future of NATO, then it cannot present a united front in response to Washington’s shifting priorities. The alliance, once held together by a common sense of purpose, is now fragmenting under the weight of both external and internal pressures.
The End of the North Atlantic Security Order?
The 2025 Munich Security Conference is not just another gathering of diplomats and policymakers—it is a moment of reckoning for the future of the transatlantic alliance. The geopolitical transition to multipolarity, combined with the rise of sovereigntism in the U.S. and nationalist movements in Europe, is placing NATO under unprecedented strain.
For Europe, the message from Washington is unmistakable: the days of unquestioned American security guarantees are over.
The U.S. is still willing to engage, but only on terms that maximize its own strategic advantage. For European states that have long relied on NATO as a given, this is a wake-up call—either they dramatically increase their defense capabilities and redefine their security priorities, or they risk being left strategically adrift.
For the U.S., the question is whether the sovereigntist approach will produce a more sustainable and effective foreign policy, or whether it will accelerate the breakdown of the security order that has governed the North Atlantic for more than seven decades.
U.S Army troopers assigned to 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division fire the M1A2 SEPV3 Main Battle Tanks as part of gunnery qualification, Sept. 22, 2022, on Mielno Tank Range, Drawsko Pomorskie Training Area, Poland. Training like this ensures the units readiness in order to provide combat-credible forces in support of NATO allies and regional security partners. (U.S. Army Photo by Staff Sgt. Charles Porter)
If European leaders leave Munich still assuming that NATO will function as it always has, they are making a historic miscalculation. The old security order is breaking down, and what replaces it remains uncertain. As the Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote in the inter-war period, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”
The transatlantic alliance, as it has existed since the Cold War, may not survive the forces now reshaping the world. Whether what comes next is an era of greater strategic autonomy or geopolitical fragmentation remains to be seen—but one thing is certain: the postwar security order will not return.
Now, indeed, is the time of monsters.
About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. Andrew is now a Contributing Editor to 19FortyFive, writing a daily column. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.
