Skip to content
Home » Nicolai Petro: Europe at a Crossroads at Munich Security Conference (Transcript)

Nicolai Petro: Europe at a Crossroads at Munich Security Conference (Transcript)

Editor’s Notes: In this insightful interview, Professor Nicolai Petro joins Glenn Diesen to analyze the shifting geopolitical landscape as the 2026 Munich Security Conference begins. The discussion focuses on Europe’s “strategic vacuum” and the internal contradictions within the EU as it grapples with the transition from a U.S.-led hegemonic order to a multipolar world. Petro and Diesen examine the divergent paths of the U.S. and Europe, the implications of Germany’s renewed military ambitions, and the ongoing challenges posed by the conflict in Ukraine. Their conversation provides a critical perspective on why Western leaders are looking backward to the past while the global majority moves toward a new, decentralized international system. (Feb 14, 2026)

TRANSCRIPT:  

Introduction

GLENN DIESEN: Welcome back. Today we are joined by Nicolai Petro, a professor at the University of Rhode Island, who also served as the U.S. State Department Special Assistant for Policy on the Soviet Union. So thank you for coming back on.

NICOLAI PETRO: Nice to be with you again, Glenn.

The Munich Security Conference and the Transition to Multipolarity

GLENN DIESEN: So we see that this annual Munich Security Conference has started and the theme is the destruction of the international order. And my interpretation though is more or less that, yeah, this is a reference to the disorganized and, well, let’s say destructive transition into a multipolar system. It didn’t necessarily have to be this messy, but it also appears that the US and Europe are moving in very different directions.

So the split in this transatlantic alliance obviously is a key theme. But the Americans obviously seem to be, well, at times maybe overly pragmatic and disregard some of the traditional institutions in order to position themselves more favorably. The Europeans, on the other hand, seem to be trapped in wishful thinking in a strategic vacuum.

That being said, obviously at the Security Conference now multipolarity is a key theme and the breakdown therefore of the post-Cold War order. How do you define though the, I guess the current transition to multipolarity?

NICOLAI PETRO: Chaos. The word you use, a vacuum of strategic thinking. Yeah, that’s a good way to think of it. The absence of strategy in a transition to something we don’t know and from a European perspective that we don’t necessarily want. And that combination has led to the very vacuum you’re talking about.

You and I are not at the Munich Security Conference this year. But I wonder if there will be any defenders of the proposition that a multipolar world could be a more secure world if approached correctly. In other words, if engaged in such a way that all the participants received and saw the benefit of participating as equals in a multipolar world.

The main difference between the hegemonic order, also known as the rules-based order, and the multipolar order, it seems to me, is that the latter is more democratic. It involves more voices in an actual discussion of the needs of the nations themselves and how they can contribute as well as benefit from a new participatory multipolar arrangement.

The very concept of multipolarity presumes the existence of multiple poles of interest. So from the perspective of the nations that saw themselves at the top of the international pecking order, this is an uncomfortable transition. Even though they may not have been, as in the case of Europe, at the very top, they were nevertheless behind the lead dog, so to speak, and as a result they knew where they were going because the lead dog, the United States, was leading them in that direction.

So now that the lead dog is going who knows where and may even be biting his harness to free himself from the rest of the pack. Well, the rest of the pack is a bit lost, I guess I would say. But it would be good for them to at least be able to engage and perhaps listen to the voices that are coming out of what used to be called the global South. But I think that term doesn’t do it justice. It’s better to refer to it as the global majority.

Europe’s Struggle with the New Reality

GLENN DIESEN: Yeah, well, if you listen to some of the speeches being made there, especially Kaja Kallas, as well as the German Chancellor Merz. Well, from Kallas, more or less the message was that we need order, otherwise there will be chaos. But order can only more or less be achieved by the structures of the past. That means more or less to restore the system we had.

So the Europeans must work and reconnect with the US and collectively we should be allowed to dominate, that is, the political West should dominate the international system. This is a, well, from my perspective, this seems like a key weakness though, for the Europeans. The inability to, I guess, have any imagination for a post-hegemonic world, a world where the political West aren’t unified and they aren’t in a dominant position. In other words, reluctance to accept this new distribution of power as a reality. And how for Europe to find a new position.

Indeed, Merz also came out in the most aggressive language. You don’t really want to hear from a German chancellor. That is, he said yet again that the German army must be the most powerful one in Europe. He said the war in Ukraine will only end when Russia has been exhausted economically and militarily. And he also argued that we, being the Germans and Europeans, imposed unheard of losses and costs on Russia.

So this is the new language of Germany, where this essentially sounds like Germany has gone to war now with Russia and the defeat of Russia is what should bring stability and order back. It doesn’t seem to make any peace with new realities, not just the new international distribution of power, but also where the war is actually going.

How do you see in the coming months as the US will continue to chart its own path?