Why world leaders think the world is “under destruction”

Gone are the days when big thinktank events like the Munich Security Conference (MSC) were the exclusive preserve of tweed-clad IR nerds arguing about great power theory.

This is 2026, darn it: the MSC’s Wolfgang Ischinger kicked things off Friday rocking Macron’s trademark aviators, before unleashing a weekend of panels and speeches he branded “Under Destruction” amid an age of “wrecking-ball politics”.

And indeed, the weekend ended up less a debate around whether that’s a fair framing, and more a debate around who’s driving the biggest bulldozer, starting with…

1. 🇺🇸 “We in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline” — Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, United States

Rubio actually delivered many of the same blunt messages Vance did at Munich last year, but he strolled off stage to a standing ovation rather than the stunned silence Vance got.

The difference? Rubio framed his critiques (whether immigration, climate, or deindustrialisation) as defending shared values that underpin a shared civilization: the West. Vance, on the other hand, framed those same critiques to question if there still are any shared values, and thus if there’s any shared civilization still worth the US defending.

For a European audience, Rubio’s speech was a relatively comforting reminder that a Reagan-style conservatism still breathes, even if it’s now delivering tougher messages.

2. 🇨🇳 “Japan’s ambitions to invade and colonize Taiwan remain unabated, and the specter of Japanese militarism lingers on” — Wang Yi, Foreign Minister, China

In maybe the event’s wildest line, China’s urbane top envoy argued it’s Japan that wants Taiwan, in a nod to the old empire’s 50-year rule on the island until its WWII surrender.

Coming barely weeks after China itself openly rehearsed exactly such an invasion (on the fraught premise that Taiwan is a renegade province), it’s part of Beijing’s continued attempt to frame Japan’s popular, hawkish new PM (Takaichi) as a threat to the world, rather than just a threat to Beijing’s own regional designs.

Still, the words irked Tokyo, which has now lodged a protest. And speaking of Japan…

3. 🇯🇵 “The war in Ukraine is not ‘somewhere far away’ for Japan” — Shinjiro Koizumi, Defence Minister, Japan

The 44-year-old Koizumi, popular son of an ex-PM and a future contender himself, wasn’t the only one to draw direct links between Russia’s war in Europe and rising jitters in Asia. In fluent English, he cited (say) North Korea sending troops for Putin, and flagged China’s own historic military build-up, arguing the security of the two regions is “indivisible.“

Rubio made a similar point, noting last century’s two great wars serve as history’s great reminder that “ultimately, our destiny is, and will always be, intertwined with yours“.

But what about Ukraine itself…?

4. 🇺🇦 “I’m younger than Putin. Believe me, this is important… Putin does not have much time” — Volodymyr Zelensky, President, Ukraine

This is not some botoxed Selling Sunset dunk, but an interesting note on Putin’s drivers: ie, the Ukrainian is arguing Putin has zero interest in settling for peace because by the time he’s ready to attack again, he’ll be gone: so any pivot to peace means admitting failure.

The ex-comedian also used some of his trademark wit to voice exasperation at how the continued talk of ending the war via “concessions” only ever means Ukraine handing Putin the land he still hasn’t managed to take by force: Western intel estimates Putin just lost more men in a month than the Soviets lost during an entire decade in Afghanistan.

Hence Zelensky’s script-flipping quip: “We can also offer a ceasefire to the Russians if they hold elections in Russia“. And now to wrap it up…

5. 🇪🇺 “Mutual defence is not optional for the EU, it is an obligation” — Ursula von der Leyen, Commission President, EU

While not a headline-grabber, history might declare this as the conference’s defining line.

First, von der Leyen is jolting Europe awake from any sleepy notion that security pledges are just a NATO thing, while the EU focuses on (say) regulating bottle caps or whatever. Indeed, the EU’s own broad mutual assistance clause is right there in the bloc’s core treaty, and France already invoked it after the Paris 2015 terrorist attacks.

Second, while this clause was always a plan-B for those 23 EU members also in NATO, von der Leyen might’ve just become the commission’s first peacetime president to call for its activation.

And third, while headlines frame this as pushing back on NATO’s Mark Rutte, who argued Europe can’t defend itself without the US, it looks more to us like a both/and insurance policy: more security addition than transition.

Anyway, all that to say whether it’s assumptions, complacency, borders, or even facts, it’s easy to see why this year’s Munich was indeed about an order “under destruction”.

Intrigue’s Take

It’s hard to know if Europe’s applause for Rubio reflects relief at hearing Washington still believes the West can win, or relief Washington still sees Europe as a partner in that fight.

Still, nobody should confuse European applause for European trust. To the contrary, the fact is for every solid Rubio speech, Europeans are still processing (say) Greenland, or surprise tariffs, or US cuts for Ukraine’s self-defence.

And the fact so many Western leaders have now had to spell out that “decline is a choice” (per Rubio, plus Meloni, Tusk et al last year) is itself already revealing, not only about Europe’s wrestle with its own doubts, but also America’s wrestle with the slogan that still underpins President Xi’s China: the East is rising while the West is declining.

A lot of authoritarian propaganda tends to rest on that same sense of inevitability: that Russia will inevitably defeat Ukraine, or that China will inevitably take Taiwan. The power of inevitability–narratives is their ability to pre-emptively disarm foes: what’s the point of (say) helping Ukraine or helping Taiwan if you’re merely delaying the inevitable?

And maybe that’s the value of these Munich events: a reminder that nothing is inevitable.