Whose security? Power, inequality and the politics of Munich 2026

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak* 

The 62nd Munich Security Conference (MSC) was held from 13 to 15 February 2026, bringing together more than forty heads of state and government, alongside ministers, military officials and policy experts. As in previous years, the majority of participating leaders were from Europe and North America, with discussions largely centred on technological competition, geopolitical tensions, European security, and the future of the transatlantic alliance under North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leadership.

Founded in 1963, the MSC presents itself as a platform for dialogue aimed at reducing conflict and fostering trust within the international security community. Its stated principle — “engage and interact with each other: Don’t lecture or ignore one another” — underscores its claim to facilitate open and informal exchange. Organisers describe the conference as a “marketplace of ideas” dedicated to “peace through dialogue” and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Critics, however, argue that despite this normative language, the conference has historically reflected the priorities of transatlantic strategic elites. They contend that the MSC’s agenda often aligns with NATO’s security framework and reproduces a liberal internationalist outlook that privileges Western geopolitical and economic interests. From this perspective, discourses of democracy, free markets and security are intertwined with the maintenance of global hierarchies shaped by colonial histories and contemporary forms of capitalist expansion.

At the 2026 conference, debates over the future of the so-called liberal international order were particularly pronounced. On 14 February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the gathering, framing his remarks around ideological and economic challenges facing Europe and the United States. He opened by invoking the famous line from the preface to The Communist Manifesto — “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism” — using it to criticise contemporary left-wing politics and to position communism as a persistent ideological adversary.

In his speech, Rubio criticised what he described as a “dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade,” arguing that outsourcing and globalisation had contributed to deindustrialisation in parts of Europe and the United States. At the same time, he emphasised the need to revitalise domestic industry and strengthen strategic autonomy within the Western alliance. On migration, he suggested that large-scale migration flows have strained social cohesion in some Western societies — a view that remains contested among scholars and policymakers, many of whom point to structural economic inequalities and governance challenges as more significant explanatory factors.

Rubio also criticised climate activism, describing certain environmental movements as excessively ideological and economically harmful. His remarks reflect an ongoing debate within Western politics over the economic costs and strategic implications of energy transition policies. While supporters of ambitious climate action stress the long-term necessity of decarbonisation, critics argue that poorly designed transitions may disadvantage domestic industries or benefit geopolitical competitors.

A central theme of Rubio’s address was the call for renewed transatlantic unity, grounded in what he characterised as a shared Western civilisational heritage shaped by Christianity and liberal constitutionalism. He called for a “renewal and restoration” that would make the West “as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past.” Supporters interpret such rhetoric as an appeal to cultural continuity and strategic coherence; detractors see it as invoking a selective reading of history that overlooks the legacies of slavery, colonialism and imperial intervention associated with Western expansion.

Rubio also questioned the sustainability of expansive welfare commitments in the context of rising defence expenditures, arguing that security challenges require greater military investment. This reflects a longstanding policy tension within NATO member states regarding the balance between social spending and defence budgets. Critics counter that welfare systems and democratic accountability are foundational to social stability and should not be framed as competing with security.

On multilateralism, Rubio expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of the United Nations in addressing ongoing conflicts, including those in Gaza and Ukraine. His remarks echoed broader US debates about the effectiveness of international institutions. Observers note that such critiques often coexist with continued reliance on these institutions when they align with US strategic objectives.

Rubio’s historical reference to Western expansion over five centuries — describing missionaries, explorers and soldiers crossing oceans and building empires — drew particular attention. For some, this invocation symbolised confidence in Western global leadership; for others, it appeared to romanticise eras marked by colonial domination and exploitation. The speech underscored divergent interpretations of Western history and its contemporary relevance.

The Munich Security Report 2026, released alongside the conference, offered a more technocratic assessment of global risks. It highlighted uncertainty surrounding US foreign policy under Donald Trump, describing European perceptions of Washington’s approach as “volatile” and oscillating between reassurance and coercion. The report noted that European states are seeking to maintain US engagement while also preparing for greater strategic autonomy. It reaffirmed the importance of global trade, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance, even as geopolitical fragmentation intensifies.

Taken together, the proceedings of the 2026 MSC illustrate the tensions shaping the contemporary international order: between multilateralism and unilateralism, welfare commitments and militarisation, climate transition and industrial competitiveness, and competing interpretations of Western history. Whether the MSC functions primarily as a platform for genuine dialogue or as a forum reinforcing established power structures remains a matter of perspective.

For critics informed by theories of racial capitalism and postcolonial political economy, the conference exemplifies how global governance spaces can reproduce hierarchies rooted in empire and capital accumulation. For defenders, it remains an indispensable arena for strategic coordination in an increasingly unstable world.

The debate itself reflects broader struggles over the future of global order. As geopolitical rivalries intensify and domestic inequalities persist, questions about justice, sovereignty and economic models are likely to remain central. Whether these tensions lead to renewed cooperation, deeper fragmentation, or transformative political movements will depend not only on elite forums such as Munich, but also on the wider political forces shaping societies across the globe.

---

*Academic based in UK