At the Munich Security Conference, the European Union’s top diplomat pushed back against a wave of criticism from Washington, accusing US leaders of playing to domestic politics and unfairly painting Europe as weak, decadent and in decline.
Karas hits back at ‘fashionable euro-bashing’
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas rejected claims from US officials that Europe is on the verge of “civilisational erasure”. She argued that this narrative has little to do with reality and everything to do with US internal debates.
Euro‑bashing has become a political fashion in Washington, but EU leaders say the trend ignores Europe’s global appeal and influence.
Speaking on the final day of the Munich gathering, Kallas said the US is starting to realise it cannot shape outcomes in Ukraine, or in European security, without genuine European buy‑in.
The conference, which brought together heads of government, defence ministers and security experts, was dominated by questions about the future of the transatlantic alliance, the war in Ukraine and the balance of power inside NATO.
Rubio’s ‘conditional’ partnership offer from Washington
The tension followed a headline speech by US secretary of state Marco Rubio. His address mixed warm language about shared history with stark conditions for future cooperation.
Rubio said the US is ready to lead a “new world order” and framed America as “a child of Europe”, stressing cultural and historical ties between the two sides of the Atlantic.
Washington says it wants Europe as a partner, but only if EU states adapt on migration, trade and defence spending.
At the same time, he laid out a clear message: the US intends to work with Europe only if it aligns more closely with American priorities on three fronts:
➡️ A study suggests cats may develop a form of dementia similar to Alzheimer’s
➡️ How to safely whiten teeth that have yellowed with age, according to dental experts
➡️ How a drop of washing?up liquid in the toilet can have a surprisingly big effect
➡️ Inheritance : the new law arriving in March completely reshapes rules for all heirs
- Stricter management of mass migration
- Freer trade terms that respond to US concerns
- Higher and more reliable European defence spending
Rubio told delegates that while the US is “prepared, if necessary, to do this alone”, the preference in Washington is to act “together with you, our friends here in Europe”. He acknowledged that American officials may sound blunt, arguing this stems from deep concern about Europe’s security and the shared fate of both sides of the Atlantic.
Europe rejects narrative of decline
Kallas responded by insisting that the EU is not the fragile, collapsing project some American politicians describe. She described “woke, decadent Europe” as a caricature, not a serious assessment of the bloc’s position in the world.
She pointed to the EU’s continued magnetic pull, noting that countries and citizens beyond the continent still want closer association or membership.
Demand to “join the club” remains strong, from aspiring candidate states to ordinary citizens in established democracies outside Europe.
Kallas cited a striking example from a recent trip to Canada, where she was told that more than 40% of Canadians would be interested in joining the EU if they could. For her, this is proof that European values still carry weight far beyond its borders.
Press freedom and human rights as a counter‑argument
The EU diplomat also took aim at US criticism of media freedom in Europe. She contrasted Estonia’s position near the top of global rankings for press liberty with the far lower score awarded to the United States.
| Country | Approximate position in global press freedom ranking |
|---|---|
| Estonia | 2nd |
| United States | 58th |
For Kallas, this undercuts the idea that Europe is sliding away from democratic principles. She argued that the EU’s broader record on rights and rule of law makes some US accusations difficult to accept.
She framed the European project as one that “pushes humanity forward”, focusing on the defence of human rights and the pursuit of prosperity based on those norms. From her perspective, this is not a civilisation in retreat but a political model still widely sought after.
Ukraine war exposes mutual dependence
The war in Ukraine hung over every session in Munich, and both Rubio and Kallas used it to highlight their arguments.
Kallas underlined that Washington cannot dictate the terms of any settlement without full European participation. The conflict, she suggested, has forced the US to recognise that Europe is not just a junior partner but an indispensable actor on its own continent.
Yet she was candid about the limits of what the EU can promise. She poured cold water on talk of Ukraine joining the EU by 2027, saying that such an ambitious accession timeline is not realistic. That admission reflects both bureaucratic hurdles in Brussels and political hesitation in several member states.
A hardened stance on Russia
Kallas is one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Moscow. She has repeatedly clashed with the Trump administration over policy towards Russia, arguing for a tougher line and sustained support for Kyiv.
That hawkish position feeds into her frustration with US rhetoric that portrays Europe as soft or complacent. In her view, the EU has taken significant risks and borne heavy economic costs to sanction Russia, supply Ukraine with weapons and absorb millions of Ukrainian refugees.
Navalny poisoning and an intelligence gap
The uneasy tone between allies was also visible in a separate episode involving the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
After Munich, Rubio travelled to Bratislava in Slovakia, where he was questioned about a joint report by five European intelligence services, including the UK’s. Those agencies concluded that Navalny had been poisoned with a toxin derived from South American dart frogs and accused the Russian state of responsibility.
Journalists asked why US intelligence agencies had not joined the statement. Rubio’s answer was evasive but revealing. He said the report was a European initiative and that Washington’s absence did not mean disagreement with the findings. The US had simply not been part of that particular effort, he argued, and sometimes “countries go out and do their thing based on the intelligence they’ve gathered”.
His comments hinted at occasional gaps in coordination, even as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer insisted that intelligence cooperation between London and Washington is “closer than ever”.
How this shapes the future of the transatlantic alliance
The exchanges in Munich show an alliance in flux rather than in crisis. US officials want faster, more visible changes from Europe on defence budgets and migration controls. European leaders, for their part, want recognition of their contributions and of their own political constraints at home.
The argument is less about whether the partnership survives, and more about who sets the terms of shared strategy in the next decade.
Several scenarios are now in play:
- Stronger European pillar in NATO: EU states raise defence spending and industrial capacity, gaining more say inside the alliance.
- Fragmented response: A few countries meet US demands while others lag, creating tensions within both NATO and the EU.
- Dual-track order: Washington pursues separate coalitions in Asia and Europe, while Brussels focuses on its neighbourhood and economic security.
How quickly EU states rearm, and whether the US political climate swings towards or away from international engagement after elections, will shape which of these paths becomes reality.
Key concepts behind the clash
For readers trying to make sense of the debate, a few terms matter.
“Transatlantic alliance” refers mainly to the political and security partnership between North America and Europe, built around NATO but also including close economic and intelligence ties. When Rubio and Kallas argue about its future, they are really arguing about leadership, burden-sharing and values.
“European strategic autonomy” is another phrase lurking in the background. Many EU leaders want the capacity to act militarily and diplomatically without always relying on the US, while still staying inside NATO. Critics in Washington hear that as a potential dilution of American influence. Supporters in Europe see it as insurance against US political swings.
In day-to-day terms, all this affects concrete issues: how quickly Ukraine receives ammunition, who pays for air defence systems, how migration across the Mediterranean is managed, and which trade rules govern industries like green tech and defence manufacturing.
The sharp words in Munich do not end cooperation, but they do signal a more transactional phase. Both sides are demanding clearer commitments from the other, and both are using public speeches to negotiate not just with allies abroad, but with voters back home.