Looking at transatlantic relations today, the true protagonist of this year’s Munich Security Conference was a form of strategic ‘cognitive dissonance.’ In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental tension that arises when beliefs and behaviors do not align. In Munich, between February 13th and 15th, this phenomenon was physically palpable: declarations of friendship alternated with signals of deep mistrust, while strategic reassurances stood in stark contrast to divergent policy decisions. What emerges - as has happened several times before - is an alliance between Europe and the United States that is formally united but emotionally uncertain and, perhaps, more detached than ever.

The most faithful and concrete interpretation of this ambivalence was provided by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In his address, the Secretary insisted on the historical bond between the two sides of the Atlantic with a powerful image: “The United States will always be a child of Europe,” followed by a meticulous list of European contributions to the building of the American Republic. Yet, in the same speech, pillars of European consensus were dismantled: climate policies were dismissed as a “climate cult,” and the West was warned not to settle for being the “polite caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” Unlike his colleague J.D. Vance at MSC 2025, Rubio proved that ‘everything can be said in the right way’: his message was objectively more gracious in form than the brutality of his predecessor, even if the substance remained uncompromising. The Secretary’s message was received with relief tinged with caution. Rubio operated a crucial semantic shift: shared values are no longer the classic liberal principles of universal liberty and justice, but rather a call to faith, ancestry, and heritage. This is the rhetoric of the ‘Western Fortress,’ an alliance based on biology and religion rather than democratic institutions.

Reactions were predictably mixed. While Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described Rubio’s tone as “very reassuring” - a sign that Brussels is desperately trying to preserve the relationship - High Representative Kaja Kallas countered firmly. Rebutting accusations of decadence, Kallas stated that “a ‘woke,’ decadent Europe is not facing civilisational erasure.” These are two sides of the same coin: diplomatic openness masking a now-chronic strategic skepticism. On the issue of security and defense, the European front did not appear united. Chancellor Friedrich Merz summarized the perceived risk of decoupling with a sharp, widely quoted phrase: “The world order we knew no longer exists.” This led to his proposal for “European Self-Assertion”: a multi-point plan focusing on increased military spending and a strong, sovereign defense industry. Conversely, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer chose to highlight Rubio’s change in tone and dampen the flames, reminding the audience that the continent’s security still depends entirely on a shared deterrence capacity with Washington. Two different accents for the same awareness: Europe must grow, but it does not yet know how to do so without American guidance, and for now, it prefers to keep the Bald Eagle clearly in sight. Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, though not present in Munich, echoed Starmer’s position in her subsequent comments.

This interpretive and programmatic dialectic also emerged in operational discussions. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius admitted that the US would not be able to protect Europe forever but firmly contested territorial pressures (with a clear reference to Greenland), invoking a return to international organizations to guarantee “peace and security” that Brussels and the Washington “can only do that together.” This position sounds like a direct challenge to Rubio’s transactional vision, expressing a paradox of dissonance: cooperation and team discipline are demanded by those who, simultaneously, threaten to dismantle the rules of the game.

In the background remains the most destabilizing political factor: Greenland. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen confirmed that the issue remains an open wound. Trump underestimated the Danish and European reaction when he ventured into his bold claim over the great Arctic island.

Statistical data from the Munich Security Index 2026 confirm that the ongoing crisis is not just between miscommunicating elites: over half of Europeans doubt that the US would intervene in the event of an attack on their home continent, while across G7 countries, Washington’s internal political instability is now perceived as a global threat on par with Russia. The dissonance has become social and widespread.

In this vacuum of certainty, the great taboo - the "elephant in the room" - re-emerges: nuclear weapons. Emmanuel Macron has recently reopened the debate on extending the French deterrent to the rest of Europe, but the numbers are unforgiving. France’s nearly 300 warheads are less than one-fifteenth of the Russian arsenal. Without a C3 (Command, Control, and Communications) system and genuine European funding, Paris’s "common atom" remains an ambition rather than a solution. Starmer also expressed a similar willingness, and initiatives are underway between the two sides of the English Channel to coordinate their deterrents. It must be noted, however, that while the French system is completely autonomous and "Made in France," the British deterrent relies on American Trident II D5 missiles carrying British-made warheads, deployed on Royal Navy submarines. Thus, the independence of the British deterrent is not absolute, a fact of significant strategic importance.

A final paradox remains. Despite divergent economic interests and opposing rhetorics, neither side can truly afford a divorce. This is the very definition of geopolitical cognitive dissonance: separating in words, while remaining condemned to stay together in facts. Perhaps we are not facing a historic rupture, but a new, convulsive, and irritable normalcy. Behind the dramatic summits, the alliance continues to function: imperfect, contradictory, but still dramatically indispensable.