Strategic Brief:
National Security: Dispatch from Munich: Europe is growing stronger, but will it be fast enough to save Ukraine? By Frederick Kempe
In this article, Frederick Kempe analyzes the 62nd Munich Security Conference (MSC) as a pivotal "thermostat" for transatlantic relations, noting a profound shift in European strategic culture. While the return of the Trump administration has introduced a "bracing chill" to traditional alliances, Kempe highlights a surprising consensus among some European officials who view Donald Trump’s transactional approach as a necessary catalyst for European self-reliance. The rhetoric from US leaders, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has shifted toward a "tough love" stance that emphasizes Europe's need to assume primary responsibility for its own security, trade, and industrial resilience.
The core of the "European awakening" described by Kempe is a move from reactive anxiety to a "steely determination" to build a sovereign defense backbone. Led by figures like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the continent is increasingly invoking Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union to institutionalize mutual defense. This shift is backed by significant material changes, including an 80% increase in defense spending since the start of the war in Ukraine and a projected investment level that could surpass US spending by 2028. This new doctrine seeks to merge European economic scale with military muscle, blurring the lines between civilian and defense industries to ensure the continent can defend its democracy and way of life independently.
However, the primary strategic concern remains the "race against the clock" in Ukraine, where Russian aggression and hybrid sabotage networks are intensifying as the conflict enters its fifth year. Kempe discusses the emergence of a "Coalition of the Willing," led by the United Kingdom and France, which has stepped in to fill the leadership vacuum and provide existential support to Kyiv while keeping Washington engaged. Despite the massive potential of the combined EU and US economies, the article concludes with a warning that Europe’s political experiment in pooled sovereignty faces its greatest test: determining if its renewed industrial and military efforts can mobilize quickly enough to prevent a Russian victory and secure a lasting peace for the West.
APSA Citation
Kempe, Frederick. 2026. "Dispatch from Munich: Europe is growing stronger, but will it be fast enough to save Ukraine?" Atlantic Council, February 17. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/inflection-points/dispatch-from-munich-europe-is-growing-stronger-but-will-it-be-fast-enough-to-save-ukraine/.
“What should a more European NATO look like? The US and Europe disagree” – Chatham House
This article analyzes divergent perspectives within NATO regarding the evolving roles of European allies and the United States in the alliance’s future. It foregrounds debates at the Munich Security Conference and among policy elites over whether Europe should take greater responsibility for its own defense or remain tightly aligned under a U.S.-dominated security umbrella. European states, having increased defense spending significantly and grown wary of reliance on Washington, are pushing for deeper European leadership and burden-sharing, while U.S. officials emphasize interoperability and continued U.S. engagement as essential for deterrence credibility. The piece highlights strategic tensions around autonomy, capability development, and command arrangements within NATO’s framework.
The article situates these disagreements in the broader context of transatlantic relations, including political friction arising from conflicting strategic priorities and policy narratives. For a military-oriented IR audience, it provides useful empirical touchpoints on capability gaps, alliance signaling, and alliance cohesion under stress. The varying visions portray how alliance politics are reshaping deterrence postures, defense industrial cooperation, and risk management within a great-power competition frame.
Publisher Description:
Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) is a London-based, independent policy institute and one of the most respected global think tanks on international affairs. Its research is generally informed by scholarly methods and practitioner insight, and it aims to bring rigorous analysis to bear on contemporary policy challenges. While not formally peer reviewed like academic journals, its expert commentary and reports often reflect in-depth knowledge from interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners; however, some analysts may exhibit Western policy-oriented biases in how they frame security dilemmas or alliance dynamics.
APSA Citation:
Chatham House. 2026. “What Should a More European NATO Look Like? The US and Europe Disagree.” Chatham House, February 13, 2026. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/02/what-should-more-european-nato-look-us-and-europe-disagree
“Iran Update, February 18, 2026” – Critical Threats Project
This situational update from the Critical Threats Project offers a concise operational picture of Iran’s domestic and foreign policy dynamics as of mid-February 2026. It tracks political developments, security posture, and diplomatic engagements as Tehran responds to escalating tensions with the United States and ongoing nuclear negotiations. The update describes maneuvering within Iran’s political elite, reported military preparations, and tactical signaling designed to shape external perceptions while balancing internal instability and opposition pressures. Its concise format is structured to support ongoing monitoring, risk assessment, and planning cycles.
For a military or IR seminar, the update’s value lies in its high-frequency tracking and context on hard and soft indicators (e.g., military deployments, political statements, diplomatic activity) that can influence crisis stability. By organizing discrete events into a coherent narrative, it helps practitioners understand how Iran calibrates coercion, deterrence, and internal control under persistent external pressure and domestic unrest.
Publisher Description:
The Critical Threats Project is an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a U.S. public policy research institution. The project specializes in timely analysis of security threats, particularly in the Middle East, Russia, and East Asia, geared toward policymakers, analysts, and military planners. Its outputs are typically brief, actionable, and designed for operational relevance rather than academic theorization; such work reflects AEI’s generally realist and U.S. strategic interests orientation, which can shape interpretation of events and prioritization of threats.
APSA Citation:
Critical Threats Project. 2026. “Iran Update, February 18, 2026.” Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute, February 18, 2026. https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/iran-update-february-18-2026
“From Rogue State to Failed State?: The Perils of Intervention in Venezuela” – American Affairs
This essay offers a critical assessment of the 2026 U.S. intervention in Venezuela, situating it within historical debates about military intervention, sovereignty, and post-conflict stabilization. The author argues that the U.S. operation, which culminated in the capture of Nicolás Maduro, risks transforming Venezuela from a struggling authoritarian state into a broader failed state if the intervention lacks a coherent stabilization strategy. Drawing on historical analogies and lessons from past cases (e.g., Iraq, Libya), the piece highlights how external force may inadvertently weaken institutional capacity, fracture social cohesion, and create security vacuums that empower non-state actors or rival factions.
The article also interrogates the strategic logic of intervention from both moral and practical standpoints, questioning whether regime removal delivers sustainable security gains and under what conditions accompanying diplomatic, economic, and governance support might mitigate negative second-order effects. For a master’s-level military audience, its value lies in unpacking trade-offs between short-term tactical success and long-term strategic stability, especially when planning exit strategies and stabilization frameworks in intervention contexts.
Publisher Description:
American Affairs is an online journal of political and economic thought that aims to bridge academic rigor and policy relevance. It publishes long-form essays by scholars, analysts, and practitioners interpreting major policy issues with depth and critical perspective. Its editorial orientation tends toward systemic critique of contemporary U.S. policy and institutional frameworks, and while it is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, its essays often engage deeply with scholarly literature and long-view strategic analysis; its particular framing can skew toward critical or heterodox interpretations of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
APSA Citation:
American Affairs. 2026. “From Rogue State to Failed State?: The Perils of Intervention in Venezuela.” American Affairs, February 2026. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2026/02/from-rogue-state-to-failed-state-the-perils-of-intervention-in-venezuela
.