At the Munich Security Conference this year, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered what many in Europe took as a defining foreign policy statement of the Trump era — one that was praised in Washington but has raised profound questions across the Atlantic about the future of transatlantic relations and the viability of the liberal world order that the United States helped build after World War II.
Rubio’s speech, which received a standing ovation from parts of the packed Munich audience, was deft in delivery but striking in content: a friendly tone, underscored by a clear core message that resonates unmistakably with the MAGA (Make America Great Again) doctrine. In Rubio’s telling, Western civilization — defined narrowly in terms of Christian heritage, sovereign borders, and traditional cultural norms — is under existential threat. Europe, he suggested, must choose to align itself with this vision or risk decline.
But to many Europeans — policymakers and publics alike — the speech did not reassure. Instead, it came as a late and inadequate attempt to repair a transatlantic partnership that has been deeply strained by successive policies from the Trump administration and accompanying shifts in American diplomatic focus.
Rubio’s Munich Message: Civilizational Rhetoric Meets MAGA Doctrine
At its core, Rubio’s Munich address was a civilizational appeal. He invoked shared history, culture, and what he termed “Western civilization” as the glue binding the United States and Europe together. He described the post–Cold War belief in open borders, free trade, and global institutions as a “dangerous delusion,” lamented liberal migration policies, and even dismissed climate policies as a “climate cult” that weakens economic and social resilience.
In Rubio’s narrative, allowing “mass migration” and ceding authority to supranational institutions erodes social cohesion and threatens the continuity of Western identity. This framing — arguably rooted more in American domestic culture wars than in strategic diplomacy — frames cooperation with Europe not as partnership among equals but as alignment with a U.S.-led vision of civilizational revival.
Rubio’s rhetoric bears resemblance to the MAGA foreign policy line: strong borders, skepticism of global institutions, prioritization of national sovereignty, and an emphasis on cultural homogeneity. While delivered in measured tones, the subtext — that Europe must first accept American political and cultural premises to secure partnership — has unsettled many leaders in Berlin, Paris, Brussels and beyond.
The Strains of Recent U.S. Policy: A Stocktake
To understand the skepticism in Europe, one must look beyond one speech and toward the aggregate of recent American policy actions.
1. NATO and Security Commitments
One of the central pillars of the transatlantic alliance has been NATO’s mutual defense guarantee — Article 5. Yet under the Trump administration, that commitment has been rhetorically uncertain at times. Previous speeches and policy positions from Washington’s leadership raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to collective defense, prompting European leaders to question whether the alliance remains a reliable security framework.
Even at the 2026 Munich conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz underscored that “the U.S. is not powerful enough to go it alone” and that Europe cannot rely on unilateral American leadership. He argued for European strategic autonomy within a reimagined NATO framework — a clear response to perceptions of American disengagement.
2. Greenland Tariffs and Territorial Frictions
Perhaps no single episode encapsulates the unease more vividly than the episode around Greenland. President Trump revived a long‑standing interest in purchasing Greenland, a semi‑autonomous Danish territory, and escalated the issue by threatening punitive tariffs on several European countries if Denmark did not accede.
European capitals reacted with alarm and condemnation. Many called the move tantamount to coercive economic diplomacy, and some, like France and Germany, said such tariff threats risked a serious erosion of transatlantic trust.
3. Trade Wars and Tariff Retaliations
Trade relations have long been a sticking point between the U.S. and EU, but in recent years, Washington’s use of unilateral tariffs — including the threat of escalating duties on European goods — has strained relations further. Even a proposed trade framework that would have reduced tariffs was suspended as the political context soured.
In response, European leaders have openly debated retaliatory measures and anti‑coercion instruments, signaling a Europe that is no longer content to absorb unilateral American economic pressures without pushback.
4. Diverging Views on Climate and Global Governance
The United States’ skeptical stance on global climate commitments — framed at times as economically harmful or ideologically driven — directly conflicts with the priorities of major European states that view climate diplomacy as a central pillar of their foreign policy.
Rubio’s characterization of climate policies as a “cult” was not merely rhetorical; it reflects an administration agenda that rejects the mainstream scientific consensus driving European decarbonization strategies.
Europe’s Response: A Fraying Consensus
Across European capitals, reactions to Rubio’s speech and the broader American policy trajectory have been mixed — but more critical than welcoming.
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both used the Munich platform to articulate visions of European autonomy. Macron rejected caricatured depictions of Europe as weak or overregulated, while Merz emphasized cooperation within NATO but on terms that respect Europe’s chosen policies rather than as echoes of American domestic debates.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer — representing one of Europe’s closest historical allies — emphasized that Europe’s strength lies in its ability to uphold diversity and shared democratic values. He stressed that the migration debate, far from threatening cohesion, reflects the continent’s commitment to pluralism.
European officials pointedly rejected the notion that culture wars imported from Washington belong in European discourse. They reaffirmed commitments to climate policy, free trade, and multilateral institutions — even as they acknowledged the need for pragmatic cooperation with the United States.
Why the Public Sentiment Has Soured
It’s not just policymakers who are uneasy. Public opinion in Europe has shifted noticeably over the past few years.
Polling data from several EU member states indicate a growing skepticism toward American leadership — a development that predates Rubio’s speech but has been amplified by recent policy disputes and cultural rhetoric emanating from Washington. European publics now express greater confidence in regional cooperation mechanisms like the EU and, in some cases, more favorable views of emerging global powers such as China. This shift reflects both pragmatic reassessments of geopolitical interests and fatigue with a U.S. foreign policy perceived as unpredictable.
The Irony of Rubio’s Appeal
Which brings us to the central paradox of Rubio’s Munich address: the speech aimed to reaffirm American commitment to Europe while simultaneously reiterating policy positions that helped fuel European doubts in the first place.
Invoking shared heritage and urging joint action against threats such as migration and economic decline plays well with certain American constituencies. But for many Europeans, the substance of the message — and not just its tone — raises difficult questions about whether the U.S. and Europe still share strategic visions that go beyond broad civilizational language.
For example, Rubio’s absent discussion of Russia’s war in Ukraine — a defining security issue for the continent — was striking. European leaders have sought robust support in countering Russian aggression, yet American policy under Trump has vacillated, often framing security assistance in transactional or conditional terms rather than as part of enduring strategic solidarity.
The Emerging World Order: Beyond Washington Consensus
The transatlantic alliance, forged in the aftermath of the Second World War, was built on a shared belief in liberal democracy, collective security, and rules‑based international cooperation. For decades, it stood as the bedrock of global stability.
Today, however, that order is under strain. New power balances — with Europe exploring strategic autonomy, China rising as a global economic force, and the Global South asserting its voice in international affairs — suggest that no one nation or alliance will dictate the future world order. Many analysts believe Europe is seeking to play a more balanced role internationally, engaged with Russia and China simultaneously while also preserving Western values — a multipolar vision that contrasts sharply with an American model that centers cultural definitions and confrontation over cooperation.
In this emerging context, Rubio’s appeal to civilizational unity looks backward rather than forward — a call to re‑center Western dominance when the geopolitical terrain is already shifting toward pluralism, equity, and diversified leadership.
Can Trust Be Rebuilt?
Rubio’s Munich speech was a carefully calibrated piece of rhetoric, blending reassurance with admonition. But words — however affirming — cannot substitute for the actions that solidify trust between nations.
If the United States hopes to restore deeper confidence in Europe, future leadership will have to move beyond cultural appeals and address the policy disagreements that have widened rifts: clear and consistent commitments to collective defense, respect for multilateral trade and climate frameworks, and diplomacy grounded in mutual respect rather than transactional leverage.
Europe is not closing the door to cooperation. But it is seeking partners who see it as an equal, not merely as an extension of America’s own domestic agenda or civilizational narrative. In the fast‑changing world of the 21st century, the old post‑war order has given way to a global landscape where shared leadership — not unilateral primacy — will define the future.
<<
在慕尼黑的“ MAGA ”宣言：马尔科·卢比奥的演讲为何暴露了美欧信任的脆弱性》.
在今年的慕尼黑安全会议上，美国国务卿马尔科·卢比奥发表了多项欧洲人士认为是特朗普时代具有决定性意义的外交政策声明——这一声明在华盛顿受到了称赞，但却在大西洋两岸引发了关于跨大西洋关系未来以及美国在二战后帮助建立的自由世界秩序是否可行的深刻质疑。
鲁比奥的演讲在慕尼黑座无虚席的观众中赢得了阵阵热烈的掌声。他的演讲表达得十分巧妙，内容却令人印象深刻：语气亲切，同时传达出明确的核心信息，这一信息与“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）的理念完美契合。在鲁比奥的阐述中，狭义上定义的西方文明——基于基督教传统、主权边界和传统文化规范——正面临生存威胁。他指出，欧洲必须选择认同这一理念，否则就会面临衰落的风险。
但对于许多欧洲人——包括政策制定者和普通民众而言——这场演讲并未让他们感到安心。相反，这更像是在事态已经严重恶化之后才做出的、力度不足的补救之举，而这种跨大西洋伙伴关系此前已因特朗普政府的一系列政策以及美国外交重点的相应转变而变得极度紧张。
从本质上讲，鲁比奥在慕尼黑的演讲是一种关于文明的呼吁。他提及共同的历史、文化以及他所称的“西方文明”，将其视为将美国和欧洲紧密联系在一起的黏合剂。他将冷战结束后对开放边境、自由贸易和全球机构的信念描述为一种“危险的妄想”，对自由移民政策表示遗憾，甚至将气候政策斥为一种“气候狂热”，认为它削弱了经济和社会的韧性。
在鲁比奥的论述中，允许“大规模移民”以及将权力交给超国家机构会削弱社会凝聚力，并威胁到西方身份的延续性。这种观点——或许更多地源于美国国内的文化冲突而非战略外交——将与欧洲的合作描述为并非平等伙伴之间的合作，而是与以美国为主导的文明复兴愿景的契合。
鲁比奥的言论与“让美国再次伟大”运动的外交政策主张颇为相似：强调严守边境、对全球机构持怀疑态度、优先维护国家主权以及强调文化上的同质性。尽管他说话时语气较为克制，但其潜台词——即欧洲必须首先接受美国的政治和文化前提，才能确保合作关系——却让柏林、巴黎、布鲁塞尔等地的许多领导人感到不安。
近期美国政策的弊端：综述
要理解欧洲民众的这种怀疑态度，就不能只看某一次言论，而应从美国近期的一系列政策举措中去考量。
- 北约与安全承诺
跨大西洋联盟的核心支柱之一便是北约的共同防御保障条款——即第 5 条。然而，在特朗普政府时期，这一承诺有时在言辞上显得模糊不定。华盛顿领导层此前的演讲和政策立场引发了人们对美国集体防御承诺的质疑，这使得欧洲领导人开始怀疑该联盟是否仍能成为可靠的安全保障体系。
甚至在 2026 年的慕尼黑会议上，德国总理弗里德里希·默茨也强调指出：“美国的实力不足以独自行动”，欧洲不能依赖美国的单方面领导。他主张在重新构想的北约框架内实现欧洲的战略自主权——这是对美国可能退出行动的担忧的一种明确回应。 - 格陵兰关税与领土争端
或许没有哪一起事件能比围绕格陵兰岛的事件更能生动地体现这种不安情绪。特朗普总统重新燃起了购买格陵兰岛的兴趣（格陵兰岛是丹麦的一个半自治地区），并进一步将此事升级，威胁称如果丹麦不加入北约，就将对几个欧洲国家征收惩罚性关税。
欧洲各国政府对此反应强烈，纷纷表示谴责。许多人认为这一举措相当于强制性的经济外交手段，还有一些国家，如法国和德国，则表示此类关税威胁可能会严重损害美欧之间的信任关系。 - 贸易战与关税报复行动
美欧之间的贸易关系长期以来一直是双方难以解决的难题，但近年来，华盛顿方面采取的单边关税措施——包括威胁提高对欧洲商品的关税——进一步加剧了双方关系的紧张态势。就连原本旨在降低关税的贸易框架方案也因政治环境恶化而被搁置。
对此，欧洲领导人已公开讨论了报复性措施和反胁迫手段，这表明欧洲不再愿意无条件地承受美国的单方面经济压力而不进行反击。 - 关于气候与全球治理的分歧观点
- 美国对全球气候承诺持怀疑态度——有时被描述为经济上有害或意识形态驱动——这直接与主要欧洲国家的优先事项发生冲突，后者将气候外交视为其外交政策的核心支柱。
- 鲁比奥将气候政策称为“邪教”的说法不仅是修辞性的；它反映了一个政府议程，即拒绝推动欧洲脱碳战略的主流科学共识。
- 欧洲的回应：共识的裂痕
- 在欧洲各国首都，针对鲁比奥演讲以及更广泛的美国政策走向的反应各不相同——总体上更多是批评而非欢迎。
- 法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙和德国总理弗里德里希·梅尔茨都利用慕尼黑平台阐述了欧洲自主的愿景。马克龙拒绝将欧洲描绘为虚弱或过度管制的刻板形象，而梅尔茨强调在北约框架内的合作，但前提是尊重欧洲自身选择的政策，而非成为美国国内辩论的回声。
- 英国首相基尔·斯塔默——代表欧洲最紧密的历史盟友之一——强调欧洲的力量在于其维护多样性和共同民主价值观的能力。他指出，移民辩论不仅不会威胁欧洲凝聚力，反而反映了欧洲对多元主义的承诺。
- 欧洲官员明确拒绝了将华盛顿的文化战争引入欧洲话语的观点。他们重申对气候政策、自由贸易和多边机构的承诺——同时也承认需要与美国进行务实合作。
- 公众情绪为何转凉
- 感到不安的不仅仅是政策制定者。过去几年，欧洲公众舆论明显发生了变化。
- 来自多个欧盟成员国的民调显示，欧洲公众对美国领导力的怀疑日益增加——这一趋势早于鲁比奥演讲，但近期政策争议和来自华盛顿的文化言论进一步放大了这种怀疑。欧洲公众现在对区域合作机制（如欧盟）表现出更大的信心，在某些情况下，对新兴全球力量如中国也有更为积极的看法。这种转变既反映了对地缘政治利益的务实重新评估，也显示出对美国外交政策不可预测性的疲劳。
- 鲁比奥呼吁的讽刺之处
- 这将我们引向鲁比奥慕尼黑演讲的核心悖论：演讲旨在重申美国对欧洲的承诺，同时又重复了先前助长欧洲疑虑的政策立场。
- 提及共同的文化遗产，并呼吁在移民和经济衰退等威胁面前采取联合行动，在某些美国选民中效果良好。但对许多欧洲人而言，信息的实质——而不仅仅是语气——提出了难题：美欧是否仍共享超越文明语言的战略愿景？
- 例如，鲁比奥在演讲中没有讨论俄罗斯在乌克兰的战争——这是欧洲安全问题的核心。欧洲领导人寻求在应对俄罗斯侵略方面获得坚实支持，而特朗普政府下的美国政策摇摆不定，经常将安全援助框定为交易性或有条件，而非持久战略团结的一部分。
- 新兴世界秩序：超越华盛顿共识
- 二战后建立的跨大西洋联盟，基于对自由民主、集体安全和基于规则的国际合作的共同信念。几十年来，它是全球稳定的基石。
- 然而今天，这一秩序正面临压力。新的权力平衡——欧洲探索战略自主，中国崛起为全球经济力量，全球南方在国际事务中发声——表明没有任何一个国家或联盟能够主导未来世界秩序。许多分析人士认为，欧洲正寻求在国际上扮演更平衡的角色，同时与俄罗斯和中国接触，同时也维护西方价值观——这种多极化视野与以文化定义和对抗为中心的美国模式形成鲜明对比。
- 在这种新兴背景下，鲁比奥对文明统一的呼吁显得向后看，而非面向未来——呼吁重新确立西方主导地位，而地缘政治格局已向多元、公平和领导力多样化转变。
- 信任能否重建？
- 鲁比奥的慕尼黑演讲是一篇经过精心设计的修辞作品，融合了安抚与警示。但语言——无论多么肯定——都无法替代巩固国家间信任的行动。
- 如果美国希望恢复欧洲更深层次的信心，未来领导层必须超越文化呼吁，解决扩大裂痕的政策分歧：对集体防御的明确、一致承诺，尊重多边贸易和气候框架，以及基于相互尊重而非交易杠杆的外交。
- 欧洲并未关闭合作之门，但它在寻找将自己视为平等伙伴的国家，而不仅仅是美国国内议程或文明叙事的延伸。在21世纪快速变化的世界中，战后旧秩序已让位于全球格局，在这个格局下，共享领导力——而非单边主导——将定义未来。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://sovereignista.com/2026/02/18/a-maga-manifesto-in-munich-why-marco-rubios-speech-exposes-the-fragility-of-transatlantic-trust/