MS Risk Blog

Munich Security Conference 2026 – European Rearmament and Deterrence Recalibration

Key Judgements                   

• The 2026 Munich Security Conference signalled that the post-Cold War model of European security dependence is eroding, as allies prepare for a future in which a US security guarantee cannot be assumed to be stable or unconditional.
• Emerging consultations among France, the UK and Germany on strengthening European deterrence using existing French and British nuclear capabilities signal a profound recalibration in European strategic posture.
• As European governments expand defence spending and commit to sustained rearmament, the credibility of this strategic shift will depend on whether increased budgets translate into deployable military capability rather than remaining largely declaratory.

Objective

This report assesses how discussions at the Munich Security Conference (13–15 February) reflect a structural shift in Europe’s defence posture, focusing on the drivers of rearmament, the emerging rethink of nuclear deterrence, and the constraints that will shape Europe’s future security direction.

Context

The 2026 Munich Security Conference took place against the backdrop of continued war in Ukraine and sustained Russian hostility toward the European security order. Western European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, arrived amid growing concern over a widening deterrence gap. While Russia remains the most immediate threat, with the outcome of the Ukraine war described as an urgent and ‘existential’ situation for Europe, the 2026 Munich Security Report, titled ‘Under Destruction’, framed a deeper structural instability: an era of alliance politics characterised by unpredictable US signalling. What some officials described as a ‘wrecking ball’ dynamic has unsettled long-standing assumptions about the durability of the American security guarantee. As a result, the core question for Western European governments is no longer whether defence spending must increase, but how rapidly strategic dependency on Washington can be reduced.  Munich therefore became a forum not only for reaffirming NATO commitments, but for exploring greater European responsibility within the alliance. France, the UK and Germany emerged central to this discussion, including consultations on whether French and British nuclear capabilities could reinforce European deterrence. At the same time, persistent shortfalls in munitions, air defence and industrial output underscored the gap between political intent and operational readiness.

Timetable of events leading up to.

February 2022 – Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine  – Fundamentally recalibrates European threat understanding and reveals capability cracks.

2023-24 – European defence budgets skyrocket – Production constraints restrain capability progression.

February 2025 – US Vice President JD Vance’s Munich speech  – Signalled a more conditional approach to transatlantic support, exposing visible strains within the alliance.

June 2025 – NATO Summit, The Hague – New benchmark set: 3.5% of GDP core defence and 1.5% broader security resilience.

Late 2025 – US rhetoric about Greenland  – Creates diplomatic strain and highlights emerging fractures within the alliance.

February 2026 – Munich Security Conference (‘Under Destruction’) – European leaders frame rearmament as structural and publicly acknowledge discussions on supplementing the US nuclear umbrella with French and British capabilities.

Analysis

Moving Toward Strategic Sovereignty

The 2026 Munich Security Conference confirmed that the change in Europe’s defence posture is no longer reactive but structural. Since 2021, European NATO members have increased defence spending by roughly 30%, and the 2025 Hague target,  3.5% of GDP for core defence within a broader 5% ambition, indicates long-term intent rather than temporary adjustment. What has changed is not only the increased threat from Russia, but the degree of uncertainty surrounding US strategic continuity. As European leaders increasingly plan for a future in which US security guarantees are less predictable, higher defence spending is used to hedge against strategic uncertainty. This reflects a gradual shift toward greater European responsibility within the transatlantic framework. Whether that transition stabilises the alliance or produces further divergence will depend on how coherently Europe can sustain political and fiscal consensus.

Breaking the Nuclear Taboo

Consultations among France, the UK and Germany regarding how French and British nuclear capabilities might reinforce European deterrence represent a deeper psychological shift. Germany is not seeking nuclear weapons, but its willingness to engage in deterrence architecture discussions marks a significant departure from its traditionally cautious posture. Once extended deterrence becomes a matter of active consideration rather than inherited assumption, it changes strategic signalling. Moscow must now account for a Europe more openly engaged in nuclear burden-sharing debates, while Washington faces a Europe preparing contingencies. Even absent institutional reform, the act of discussing nuclear integration reshapes expectations about Europe’s long-term strategic posture.

The Gap Between Intent and Capability

Ambitious spending commitments alone will not secure deterrence credibility. Throughout the Munich conference, warnings about ammunition shortages, air defence shortfalls and industrial bottlenecks revealed that financial pledges still outpace operational readiness. Initiatives such as the SAFE framework and closer UK/EU industrial coordination are designed to address financial and structural weaknesses, but industrial mobilisation requires time, skilled labour and sustained political will. If higher budgets fail to produce visible capability gains within the next several years, the strategic shift outlined at Munich 2026 risks being perceived as rhetorical rather than substantive and will not go unnoticed by Moscow. Conversely, if spending translates into scaled production and improved readiness, Europe will materially strengthen its deterrent posture and bargaining power within NATO.

The ‘Iron-clad’ Alliance – Philippines and US Expand Defence Commitment

Key Judgements

On Tuesday 17^th February, a joint-statement from the US and Philippines pledged additional deployments of missile and unmanned systems in the Philippines. The announcement, made following the annual US-Philippines Strategic Dialogue in Manila, reinforces the Philippine’s capacity to leverage distributed deterrence.

• As the Philippines deepens its international defence partnerships, the political weight and costs of Chinese aggression has further increased.
• The move is likely to escalate the build-up of military infrastructure and the frequency of confrontation as China seeks to undermine US regional influence.

Objective

This analysis intends to map the trajectory of Philippine defence strategy and alignment, seeking to determine how an evolution in threat perception shifts its role as an actor in broader regional dynamics.

Context

Tuesday’s announcement follows a pattern of increased defence commitments between the Philippines and its international partners relating to military infrastructure and cooperation. The move comes amidst ongoing territorial dispute with China, whose defence expenditure has more than doubled since 2013, including yearly increases of 6-8 percent. Following the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, the Philippine government embarked upon an ambitious 15-year military modernisation programme, set to continue through to 2027. This transition responds to a shift in security focus away from domestic insurgency towards prioritisation of external and maritime deterrence. The onset of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration in 2022 has paved the way for expanded defence cooperation with the Philippine’s partners, most recently including Japan, Australia, Italy and Canada. Manila’s current strategy is to leverage these international partnerships to reduce the asymmetry of unilateral military power, signifying intent to respond to China’s provocations through layered deterrence.

Timeline of US-Philippine bilateral defence cooperation

• 1951 – US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) – Establishment of a formal alliance in the event of an attack.
• 1998 – Visiting Forces Agreement – Legal foundation for the presence and jurisdiction of US military personnel across the Philippines.
• 2014 – Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) – Permits US forces rotational access to nine Philippine military bases as of 2023.
• 2024 – General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) – Facilitates the sharing of classified intelligence and defence technology between the respective states.
• 2025 – Acceleration of advanced capabilities, joint-operations and strengthened defense industrial cooperation.
• 2026 – Commitment of increased advanced missile deployment and unmanned systems.

Analysis

The latest agreement between the US and the Philippines marks a symbolic reaffirmation of the partnership on the 75^thanniversary of their alliance. This is especially significant for the US as the strategic positioning of the Philippines in relation to the Chinese mainland ensures that it features centrally in deterrence capability planning for Taiwan. Philippine ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel, who took part in Monday’s talks, said that discussions revolved around the possible deployment of upgraded missile launchers. This would supplement the installation of a mid-range Typhon missile launcher system in 2024, which currently places China and Taiwan within the 1,600km range of its Tomahawk-capable payload. Pledges to boost this capability with additional systems signal that the Philippines is reorientating away from sole domestic posture into being an integrated member of US forward deterrence architecture. In the immediate-term, this positioning is likely to escalate grey-zone confrontations with China as it seeks to test the limits of the partnership and respond with development of its own land-based capabilities. In the mid-term, the move represents a solidification of bloc-politics in the region, where the Philippines will attempt to reduce China’s political and economic leverage through closer engagement with US-foreign policy objectives.

Syria’s Northeastern Integration Agreement: Implications for MENA Security

Key Judgements

• The 30 January agreement between Syria’s interim government and the Kurdish-led SDF marks the most significant territorial consolidation since Assad’s fall, with government forces deploying to al-Hasakah and Qamishli for the first time in over a decade.
• Implementation hinges on three contested issues — Kurdish autonomy, the custody of 40,000+ ISIS detainees, and Türkiye’s stated intent to eradicate the PKK from Syrian soil — any of which could trigger a resumption of hostilities.
• Failure would create a vacuum for ISIS reconstitution and invite Turkish military intervention, with cascading effects on Iraqi border security and broader regional counterterrorism coordination.

Objective

This report assesses the January–February 2026 ceasefire and integration agreement between Syria’s interim government and the SDF. It identifies the key factors that will determine whether northeastern Syria transitions toward stability or renewed fragmentation, with implications across the MENA region.

Context

Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria’s interim government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa has pursued the reintegration of territories outside central control. The SDF, which built autonomous administrative structures across northeastern Syria during the civil war, controls critical oil fields, border crossings, and detention facilities housing over 40,000 ISIS suspects.

A March 2025 agreement called for SDF integration into government forces by year-end, but implementation stalled over autonomy demands. In November 2025, the US admitted Syria into the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, undermining the SDF’s position as Washington’s primary strategic partner. On 13 January 2026, the interim government launched a military offensive against SDF positions, expanding rapidly across Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor before a US-mediated ceasefire on 18 January and a comprehensive agreement on 30 January.

Timeline

Mar 2025:  Initial Syria-SDF integration agreement signed; implementation stalls over autonomy demands.

Nov 2025:  US admits Syria to Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, reducing SDF leverage.

13 Jan 2026:  Syrian government launches offensive in eastern Aleppo; expands to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor by 17 January.

18 Jan:  US-mediated 14-point ceasefire announced. Reports emerge of ISIS fighters escaping detention facilities.

30 Jan:  Comprehensive agreement reached — ceasefire, phased military integration, government deployment to al-Hasakah and Qamishli, handover of oil fields and border crossings.

2–4 Feb:  Interior Ministry forces deploy in al-Hasakah and Qamishli. SDF public relations chief appointed governor of al-Hasakah.

Analysis

A structural shift, not just another ceasefire. Unlike previous arrangements that focused on temporary ceasefires or contact-point management, the 30 January accord provides for the integration of entire SDF units into the Syrian army, government deployment to SDF-held cities, and the appointment of a Kurdish figure as governor of al-Hasakah. This represents genuine political accommodation — but fundamental obstacles remain.

The ISIS detainee problem. The SDF managed camps holding over 40,000 ISIS suspects in degrading conditions. During the January offensive, the UK raised alarm at the UN Security Council over reports of ISIS fighters escaping detention facilities. Iraq absorbed 7,000 high-risk detainees in January to avert mass breakouts, but Iraqi intelligence warned these individuals could reconstitute insurgent networks from within the penal system. If camp administration transfers to Damascus without adequate security guarantees, the risk of further escapes or radicalisation is significant.

Türkiye as spoiler. Ankara views SDF command structures as extensions of the PKK. On 11 February, Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry reiterated its determination to eradicate the PKK from Syrian territory, citing Sinjar, Makhmur, and Qandil. If Türkiye perceives the integration process as preserving Kurdish military autonomy under a different label, unilateral military intervention remains likely — as Ankara has done repeatedly in northern Iraq. Such action would collapse the agreement and destabilise the broader region.

Diminishing US guarantees. Washington mediated the January ceasefire but its broader strategic recalibration away from Syria leaves the agreement without a credible external guarantor. The EU has committed €620 million for 2026–2027, and the UN estimates 16.5 million Syrians remain in need, but recovery requires sustained institutional investment. If the agreement holds, it opens a pathway to reconstruction and foreign investment. If it collapses, northeastern Syria risks becoming a fragmented zone of competing armed factions, ISIS resurgence, and cross-border instability affecting Iraq, Türkiye, and the broader Levant. The next 90 days will be decisive.

Russian Energy Leverage and Political Influence in the Western Balkans

Key Judgements

• Russia continues to use energy dependency as a low-visibility influence mechanism across the Western Balkans, particularly in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Energy pricing incentives and long-term gas agreements provide Moscow with structural political leverage rather than immediate coercive power.
• Messaging around “energy sovereignty” and Western unreliability is increasingly aligned with key political decision points rather than elections.
• This activity is unlikely to trigger short-term instability but contributes to long-term strategic ambiguity and slows Euro-Atlantic integration.

Objective

To assess how Russia is leveraging energy dependence to shape political behaviour and strategic orientation in the Western Balkans, and to evaluate the wider implications for regional security and EU cohesion.

Context

The Western Balkans illustrate persistent energy vulnerability within Europe, shaped by limited diversification and continued dependence on Russian supply infrastructure. Although states in the region have formally committed to European integration, reliance on Russian gas imports, established transit routes, and long-term contracts negotiated under previous political arrangements continues to define their energy landscape.

Following the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s capacity to employ overt energy cut-offs as a coercive instrument has declined. In response, Russia has shifted its strategy towards maintaining price stability, offering selective incentives, and shaping narratives, rather than pursuing direct disruption. This approach enables Moscow to sustain influence in the region while minimising the risk of international repercussions.

In Serbia, preferential gas pricing and extended contracts have reinforced domestic narratives that frame Russia as a stable partner in contrast to the perceived volatility and expense of European energy markets. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fragmentation of governance and entity-level control over energy policy creates multiple avenues for Russian-linked actors to shape policy outcomes.

Timeline

• Pre-2022
  Russian energy dominance across the Balkans is largely uncontested; energy ties viewed as pragmatic rather than political
• 2022–2023
  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increases EU pressure for diversification; Moscow reframes itself as a stabilising energy provider amid “Western chaos”
• 2024
  Long-term gas agreements and pricing incentives are highlighted in domestic political discourse as symbols of national sovereignty.
• Early 2025
  Energy narratives increasingly align with EU policy debates and sanctions discussions rather than electoral cycles, indicating strategic conditioning rather than direct interference.

Analysis

Moscow’s use of energy leverage is grounded in structural factors, including infrastructure, contractual obligations, and domestic political narratives. This form of influence is persistent and embedded, contrasting with the more episodic nature of information operations or overt political interference, and makes countering Russian energy leverage costly and politically challenging.

Russian messaging avoids direct criticism of the EU, instead focusing on economic realism, affordability, and national autonomy. This framing is particularly effective in states experiencing economic insecurity and political fragmentation, allowing Moscow to erode public confidence in EU integration without overt demands for political alignment.

This strategy enables Russia to maintain influence without escalation, relying on the possibility of withdrawal rather than actual supply disruptions. While unlikely to reverse the region’s strategic orientation, energy leverage slows momentum, preserves Russian access, and contributes to long-term strategic drift in the Western Balkans.

Without substantial investment in diversification and political reform, Moscow is likely to retain the capacity to indirectly shape strategic behaviour. The result is not overt destabilisation, but rather strategic drift, which ultimately limits Western consolidation in Southeastern Europe and serves Russian interests.

The Greenland Crisis

Key Judgements

• U.S. pressure to take control over Greenland triggered a major NATO internal conflict, prompting Operation Arctic Endurance, a coordinated NATO military exercise deployment to Greenland to deter escalation and signal alliance resolve.
• Washington frames its Greenland strategy around the $175 billion Golden Dome and Arctic defence, but the primary objective is likely to be securing rare earth access to counter China’s 90% dominance of global supply chains.
• The Davos Framework has eased tensions temporarily with a negotiation period focused on expanding NATO Arctic operations but suspended U.S. tariffs are set to rise to 25% and tensions resume if no agreement reached by 1 June 2026.

Objective

This report assesses the strategic, economic and alliance risks arising from the Greenland sovereignty crisis. It examines U.S. interest in Greenland’s potential role in strengthening Western rare earth supply chain resilience, explores the impact of U.S. trade and security leverage on NATO and EU cohesion, and  evaluates the Davos Framework as a temporary de-escalation mechanism.

Context

The U.S. move on Greenland created serious tensions within NATO and on transatlantic relations. While the U.S. remains a central security partner, its approach has raised concerns among European allies about respect for sovereignty, alliance norms, and collective decision-making. The situation is shaped by two parallel pressures: U.S. strategic priorities in Arctic defence linked to the Golden Dome missile programme, and intensifying competition over rare earth supply chains, which remain heavily dominated by China. Following a temporary U.S.–China agreement in November 2025 that eased rare earth export restrictions, China’s current licensing regime is due to expire on 10 November 2026, creating uncertainty over future supply. This has increased U.S. interest in alternative sources, bringing Greenland’s mineral potential into sharper strategic focus.

Analysis

Alliance Shock: Western Europe and the NATO Stress Test

The diplomatic crisis between the United States and Denmark raised widespread European concern, and President Trump’s 11 January 2026 statement that he would act on Greenland ‘one way or another’ suggested coercion against a fellow NATO member.  Just a few days later on 15 January,  Operation Arctic Endurance, a Danish-led military deployment supported by seven allies was deployed to Greenland, formally framed as an exercise to counter potential Russian activity but understood to signal deterrence and allied solidarity in response to the perceived U.S. threat. The episode exposed European vulnerability to U.S. unilateralism and raised broader concerns about alliance cohesion, sovereignty norms, and the predictability of U.S. leadership within NATO.

National Security Framing: Executive Leverage and European Risk

The strategic value of Greenland exists due to its missile warning capabilities and for North Atlantic security, and a national security narrative serves as political cover for Washington to achieve its wider strategic goals without appearing to engage in a territorial land grab. Positioning Greenland as a national security priority, anchored in the $175 billion Golden Dome missile-defence program, also enables expansion of presidential legal powers such as use of the Defence Production Act, with reduced Congressional and allied oversight. For European allies, this situation creates a precedent risk, signalling a willingness by the U.S. to prioritise executive power of alliance consensus, which has implications for trade, defence and security.

Core Strategic Driver: Rare Earths, China, and Supply Chain Leverage

The primary driver behind U.S. interest in Greenland is likely rare earth access, aimed at weakening China’s 90% dominance of the market. Greenland holds an estimated 36.1 million metric tonnes of rare earth reserves, positioning it among the world’s most significant untapped sources. Against this backdrop, Trump’s strategy is likely shaped by a desire to approach the November 2026 expiry of China’s rare-earth export controls with greater leverage and contingency options, reducing U.S. exposure to Chinese economic pressure.

Greenland’s resources are not as inaccessible as often assumed, with several major deposits located in ice-free coastal regions that are increasingly viable for extraction. Although infrastructure investment remains substantial, commercial momentum is growing. Energy Transition Minerals has committed $150 million to Greenlandic rare earth development, though the project is currently stalled due to ongoing legal and regulatory disputes, while the Tanbreez project has secured approximately $120million in government-backed financing to support a Western-aligned supply chain.  These developments suggest Greenland’s rare earth sector is commercially viable, strategically significant and financially attractive, with clear implications for long-term industrial resilience.

The Davos Framework: A Six-Month Strategic Pause

The Davos Framework brokered on 21 January 2026 saw the United States pause threats of force and suspend 10% punitive tariffs while Denmark and its allies pursue negotiations on the proposed NATO-led ‘Arctic Sentry’ mission. This mission allows for an expansion of U.S. operations in the Arctic region without a formal transfer of sovereignty. President Trump later revealed there was also discussion regarding Greenlandic mineral rights which suggests that access to natural resources is an implicit condition of the agreement so far as the U.S. is concerned.  Failure to reach an agreement by 1 June 2026  risks renewed trade escalation and further alliance strain. As such, the Davos Framework currently functions as a temporary truce rather than a durable resolution, leaving the underlying drivers of the crisis unresolved.