ASIA
15 February 2026
Munich security report 2026 -- under destruction
The report for the Munich security conference 2026 is a must read.
The Munich Security Conference is the most important security conference for the Trans Atlantic world, bringing together heads of state and government, ministers, business, civil society and the media.
Here are the key points of the report for the Munich security report 2026 which is a must read.
The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current US administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
Ironically, the president of the United States – the country that did more than any other to shape the post-1945 international order – is now the most prominent of the demolition men. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the postwar international order is now under destruction.
For its supporters, Washington’s bulldozer politics promises to break institutional inertia and compel problem-solving on challenges that were previously marked by gridlock. Critics, in turn, fear that this destructive policy is undermining the international community’s ability to tackle humankind’s most daunting challenges. They also believe that this approach will not solve anything but will pave the way for a world that privileges the rich and the powerful, not the wider mass of people who have placed their hopes in disruptive change.
Those who are still invested in a rules-based order are increasingly organizing themselves. But, if they want to contain the worst expressions of a policy of destruction, they need to better fortify essential structures, draw up new, more sustainable designs, and become bolder builders themselves.
Washington’s gradual retreat from its traditional role as Europe’s primary security guarantor – reflected in wavering support for Ukraine and threatening rhetoric on Greenland – is heightening Europe’s sense of insecurity and exposing its unfinished transition from security consumer to security provider.
Confronted with shifting signals from Washington, European nations remain torn between denial and acceptance, striving to keep the US engaged while only cautiously moving toward greater autonomy.
European nations have responded by forging flexible leadership coalitions, increasing defense spending, and providing Ukraine with the means to sustain its war effort. Yet doubts persist as to whether these efforts are sufficient to compensate for the erosion of Pax Americana.
China’s domineering behavior, particularly toward Taiwan, raises concerns about stability in the region.
US rhetoric about confronting China and backing its regional allies contrasts with a vacillating China policy and harsh treatment of allies over defense spending and trade.
As a result, Indo-Pacific actors increasingly doubt US security guarantees and strategic interest in the region.
Indo-Pacific actors are torn between trying to attract US commitment and hedging their bets. Ultimately, the region will have to come to terms with an uncertain new security landscape.
US tariffs and Chinese export controls have disrupted global markets. While trade has been more robust than initially feared, economic fragmentation and uncertainty risk inflicting welfare losses worldwide – ironically, including in the US itself.
While Washington and Beijing are undermining the very principles of rules-based trade, new trade partnerships that are still committed to the WTO are emerging around the world. Whether these smaller coalitions will suffice to sustain rules-based trade – at least in part – or whether the system will collapse entirely into the law of the strongest remains an open question.
The budget cuts by traditional donor countries – most notably by the US, formerly the largest donor – have ruptured the development and humanitarian systems. Consequently, the human toll in LMICs is rising and UN agencies are having to limit their operations.
The gaps left by the US and European countries will not be entirely filled by nontraditional donors, including those from the Gulf. Nevertheless, China is using the moment to expand its political and strategic influence within UN agencies.
Several reforms have been proposed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the development and humanitarian systems. Yet, decision-makers must not only improve implementation but also find ways to address the fundamental questioning of the systems’ legitimacy by donors such as the US.
Here are the key points of the report for the Munich security report 2026 which is a must read.
The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current US administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
1. Under Destruction
The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. In many Western societies, leaders who favor destruction over incremental change have risen to prominence. Their disruptive agendas build on widespread disenchantment with the performance of democratic institutions and a pervasive loss of trust in meaningful reforms.Ironically, the president of the United States – the country that did more than any other to shape the post-1945 international order – is now the most prominent of the demolition men. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the postwar international order is now under destruction.
For its supporters, Washington’s bulldozer politics promises to break institutional inertia and compel problem-solving on challenges that were previously marked by gridlock. Critics, in turn, fear that this destructive policy is undermining the international community’s ability to tackle humankind’s most daunting challenges. They also believe that this approach will not solve anything but will pave the way for a world that privileges the rich and the powerful, not the wider mass of people who have placed their hopes in disruptive change.
Those who are still invested in a rules-based order are increasingly organizing themselves. But, if they want to contain the worst expressions of a policy of destruction, they need to better fortify essential structures, draw up new, more sustainable designs, and become bolder builders themselves.
2. Detachment Issues
Europe has entered a prolonged era of confrontation, as Russia’s full-scale war of aggression and expanding hybrid campaign dismantle the remnants of the post–Cold War cooperative security order.Washington’s gradual retreat from its traditional role as Europe’s primary security guarantor – reflected in wavering support for Ukraine and threatening rhetoric on Greenland – is heightening Europe’s sense of insecurity and exposing its unfinished transition from security consumer to security provider.
Confronted with shifting signals from Washington, European nations remain torn between denial and acceptance, striving to keep the US engaged while only cautiously moving toward greater autonomy.
European nations have responded by forging flexible leadership coalitions, increasing defense spending, and providing Ukraine with the means to sustain its war effort. Yet doubts persist as to whether these efforts are sufficient to compensate for the erosion of Pax Americana.
3. Pact or Fiction?
The US once played the dominant military and economic role in Indo-Pacific stability and prosperity, but that era is coming to an end as China’s power grows.China’s domineering behavior, particularly toward Taiwan, raises concerns about stability in the region.
US rhetoric about confronting China and backing its regional allies contrasts with a vacillating China policy and harsh treatment of allies over defense spending and trade.
As a result, Indo-Pacific actors increasingly doubt US security guarantees and strategic interest in the region.
Indo-Pacific actors are torn between trying to attract US commitment and hedging their bets. Ultimately, the region will have to come to terms with an uncertain new security landscape.
4. Terms of Trade
In 2025, challenges to the global trade order reached new heights. The US has heavily deployed economic coercion to secure bilateral deals, rejecting the rules-based system it once championed. China has continued its market-distorting practices and escalated its weaponization of economic chokepoints.US tariffs and Chinese export controls have disrupted global markets. While trade has been more robust than initially feared, economic fragmentation and uncertainty risk inflicting welfare losses worldwide – ironically, including in the US itself.
While Washington and Beijing are undermining the very principles of rules-based trade, new trade partnerships that are still committed to the WTO are emerging around the world. Whether these smaller coalitions will suffice to sustain rules-based trade – at least in part – or whether the system will collapse entirely into the law of the strongest remains an open question.
5. Death by a Thousand Cuts?
Traditional donor countries face economic pressure, populist disinformation campaigns, and a more geopolitically competitive reality. As a result, they have narrowed their definition of national interest to economic competitiveness and protection against immediate security threats.The budget cuts by traditional donor countries – most notably by the US, formerly the largest donor – have ruptured the development and humanitarian systems. Consequently, the human toll in LMICs is rising and UN agencies are having to limit their operations.
The gaps left by the US and European countries will not be entirely filled by nontraditional donors, including those from the Gulf. Nevertheless, China is using the moment to expand its political and strategic influence within UN agencies.
Several reforms have been proposed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the development and humanitarian systems. Yet, decision-makers must not only improve implementation but also find ways to address the fundamental questioning of the systems’ legitimacy by donors such as the US.