A year has passed since US Vice-President JD Vance's address at the Munich Security Conference, where he criticized Europe's migration and free speech policies, and asserted that the continent's greatest threat originates from within.

The audience's reaction was one of noticeable surprise, and since then, the Trump White House has significantly altered the global landscape.

The US has imposed tariffs on numerous countries, including allies, and has taken several controversial actions, such as the raid on Venezuela, pursuing a Ukraine peace agreement on terms favorable to Russia, and suggesting that Canada consider becoming part of the United States.

The upcoming conference, scheduled to start later this week, is expected to be a pivotal event, with US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio leading the US delegation, and over 50 world leaders in attendance, amid growing concerns about Europe's security.

The recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS) has heightened concerns about Europe's defense, as it urges the continent to assume "primary responsibility for its own defense" and become more self-sufficient, fueling fears that the US may be reevaluating its commitment to European security.

The Greenland dispute has significantly strained the transatlantic alliance between the US and Europe. On multiple occasions, Donald Trump has expressed his desire to acquire Greenland, citing US and global security concerns, and initially did not exclude the possibility of using force to achieve this goal.

As a self-governing territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, Denmark's prime minister responded by warning that a US military takeover would have severe consequences, potentially leading to the dissolution of the Nato alliance, which has been the cornerstone of European security for 77 years.

Although the Greenland crisis has been temporarily set aside due to other pressing priorities at the White House, it raises a lingering concern ahead of the Munich Security Conference: Have the security ties between Europe and the US suffered irreparable damage?

It is undeniable that these ties have undergone a transformation, but they have not completely disintegrated.

Sir Alex Younger, the former head of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, serving from 2014 to 2020, shared his assessment with the BBC, stating that while the transatlantic alliance will not revert to its previous state, it remains intact, despite the changes it has undergone.

According to Sir Alex, the US-Europe security, military, and intelligence partnership remains highly beneficial. Additionally, he agrees with the notion that Trump's stance on Europe taking more responsibility for its own defense is justified.

Sir Alex argues that the current dynamic is unsustainable, citing the significant population disparities between Europe, the US, and Russia. With 500 million people in Europe, 300 million in the US, and 140 million in Russia, he believes it is logical for Europe to assume a greater role in its own defense.

The long-standing imbalance in defense spending, where the US has effectively subsidized Europe's defense needs for decades, has been a major point of contention for the Trump administration. This sentiment has contributed to the White House's frustration with Europe.

The divisions within the transatlantic alliance extend far beyond issues of troop numbers and the failure of certain NATO countries, such as Spain, to meet the minimum defense spending target of 2% of GDP. Notably, Russia allocates over 7% of its GDP to defense, while the UK spends just under 2.5%.

Significant differences exist between the Trump administration and Europe on key issues like trade, migration, and free speech. Furthermore, European governments have expressed concern over Trump's interactions with Vladimir Putin and his tendency to shift blame to Ukraine for the Russian invasion.

Ahead of the Munich Security Conference, a report has been released by the organisers, featuring comments from Tobias Bunde, director of research and policy, who notes a significant shift in US strategy since the end of World War II.

According to Bunde, the traditional US approach was based on three key principles: the value of multilateral cooperation, economic integration, and the importance of democracy and human rights as strategic assets.

Bunde observes that the Trump administration has undermined or challenged all three of these principles, marking a notable departure from previous US policy.

The US National Security Strategy, which reflects the Trump White House's perspective, has been characterised by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies as a stark wake-up call for Europe, highlighting a significant divergence between European and US views.

The strategy prioritises support for groups that oppose European governments, which are nominally US allies, and encourages resistance to current European policies, warning that the continent's migration policies may lead to "civilizational erasure".

The document underscores the significance of Europe to the United States, stating that the continent remains a crucial strategic and cultural partner.

According to the CSIS, Europe's response to the NSS will likely mirror the widespread shock that followed Vice President JD Vance's address in Munich, which took place in February 2025.

Sophie Eisentraut of the Munich Security Conference notes that a new breed of political leaders has emerged, who instead of promising change or improvement, openly seek to dismantle existing institutions, earning them the label "demolition men".

A key concern underlying these developments is whether Article 5 of the Nato charter remains effective.

This provision, enshrined in Nato's founding document since 1949, guarantees that an attack on one member state will be considered an attack on all, triggering a collective response from the alliance, backed by US military power, as was the case until recently with the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union or Russia against a Nato member like Lithuania.

The Trump administration's perceived disregard for Europe, combined with the president's unpredictable nature, has raised concerns about the viability of Article 5, a cornerstone of Nato's collective defense commitment, despite assurances from Nato officials that it remains in effect.

A hypothetical scenario, which can be referred to as "the Narva Test", poses an important question: if Russia were to launch a hypothetical incursion into Narva, a predominantly Russian-speaking town in Estonia located on the border with Russia, under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians, would the current US administration come to Estonia's defense?

Similar doubts can be applied to other potential flashpoints, such as the Suwalki Gap, a strategic corridor separating Belarus from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, or the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, where Russia has an established presence in Barentsburg, raising questions about the US response to potential Russian aggression in these areas.

President Trump's recent suggestion to purchase Greenland from Denmark, a fellow Nato member, has further complicated matters, making it challenging to predict the administration's reaction to a potential Russian move against a Nato ally, which could lead to miscalculations at a time when Russia is engaged in a large-scale conflict with Ukraine.

The upcoming Munich Security Conference may provide insight into the future of the transatlantic alliance, but the answers may not be what European nations hope to hear, as the conference is likely to address the uncertainties and challenges facing Nato and its members.